VIPAN GUPTA vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/44/2018HC Himachal PradeshHPHC01007716201806 July 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issues involved in the present appeal had already been adjudicated by the same Court in ITA No. 20 of 2015 (M/s Stovekraft India V. Commissioner of Income Tax), and this decision was further modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4765 of 2018 (Mahabir Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax). Consequently, the Court applied the directions from the M/s Stovekraft India case, as modified by the Supreme Court in Mahabir Industries, mutatis mutandis, to the present appeal. The appeal was disposed of accordingly. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the entire appeal was resolved based on precedent.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by Sh. Vipan Gupta, proprietor of M/s Jayanti Polumers Industries, against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla. The specific assessment year(s) and the nature of the order or action under challenge are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the issues involved in this appeal have already been adjudicated by the High Court in a previous case, ITA No. 20 of 2015, titled M/s Stovekraft India V. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on 28.11.2017. This previous decision was subsequently modified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4765 of 2018, titled Mahabir Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide whether the issues involved in the present appeal are identical to those already adjudicated in M/s Stovekraft India V. Commissioner of Income Tax and subsequently modified by the Supreme Court in Mahabir Industries vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, Sh. Vipan Gupta, implicitly relies on the High Court's previous adjudication and the Supreme Court's modification, suggesting that the present appeal should be decided on the same lines. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla, does not appear to have presented any specific arguments in the provided text. The judgment indicates that the matter was disposed of based on prior pronouncements.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA IT A No. :

44 of 2018. Decided on:

06.07.

2018. Sh. Vipan Gupta, Prop. M/s Jayanti Polumers Industries

..Appellant.

Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla

..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Surinder Saklani, Advocate vice Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondent : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Diwan Singh Negi, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

Undisputedly, issues involved in the present appeal already stand adjudicated by this Court in ITA No. 20 of 2015, titled as M/s Stovekraft India V. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on 28.11.2017, as modified by Hon’ble Supreme Court As such, making the directions in M/s Stovekraft India (supra), as modified by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahabir          

 Industries (supra), applicable mutatis mutandi, also to the present appeal, the same is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Sanjay Karol)

Acting Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel)

Judge July 06, 2018. (narender/brb)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →