MS ASA BIOTECH vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/50/2017HC Himachal PradeshHPHC01015953201726 February 2018Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issues involved in the present 21 appeals had already been adjudicated by the court in M/s Stovekraft India v. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on November 28, 2017. Consequently, the court directed that the present appeals be disposed of by applying the directions from the Stovekraft judgment mutatis mutandis. This means the principles and outcomes of the Stovekraft case were to be applied to these appeals without material alteration. The court did not delve into the specific facts of each of the 21 appeals but relied on the established precedent. Pending applications related to these appeals were also disposed of accordingly. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned for these appeals.

What were the facts?

This judgment consolidates 21 Income Tax Appeals (ITAs) filed by various assessees, including M/s Hycron Electronics, M/s Usaka Electricals, M/s R.R. Lamps, and others, against the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeals were filed between 2015 and 2017. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh heard these appeals. The core of the matter involved issues that had previously been adjudicated by the same court in a different case, ITA No.20/2015, titled M/s Stovekraft India v. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on November 28, 2017. The court re-heard the matter for clarifications from the appellants after the respondent had completed submissions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appeals filed by the various assessees could be disposed of based on a previous decision of the same court. The court needed to decide if the principles laid down in M/s Stovekraft India v. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITA No.20/2015) were applicable to the present set of appeals. The appellants, represented by multiple advocates, likely sought to argue their individual cases, but the court's focus was on the precedential value of the Stovekraft judgment. The respondent, represented by senior counsel, would have supported the application of the prior ruling. The question was essentially whether the present appeals presented any distinguishing facts or legal arguments that would warrant a different outcome than the Stovekraft decision.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

ITAs No.25 of 2015; 4,26,39 of 2016;13,15, 27,34,35,36,41,42,43,47,49,50,51,52,53, 54 and 61 of 2017. Reserved on : 17.11.2017 Re-heard on : 26.2.2018

Date of Decision : February 26, 2018

1.

ITA No.25 of 2015 M/s Hycron Electronics

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

2.

ITA No.4 of 2016 M/s Usaka Electricals

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

3.

ITA No.26 of 2016 M/s Usaka Electricals

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

4.

ITA No.39 of 2016 M/s Hycron Electronics

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

5.

ITA No.13 of 2017 M/s R.R. Lamps

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

6.

ITA No.15 of 2017 M/s R.R. Lamps

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

…2…

7.

ITA No.27 of 2017 M/s V.R. Paper Cone Industries

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

8.

ITA No.34 of 2017 Captab Biotech

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

9.

ITA No.35 of 2017 Aqua Vitoe Laboratories

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

10.

ITA No.36 of 2017 Sai Bliss Drugs & Pharmaceuticals

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

11.

ITA No.41 of 2017 M/s Mahabir Industries

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

12.

ITA No.42 of 2017 M/s Sri Sai Print Pack Industries

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

13.

ITA No.43 of 2017 M/s Sri Sai Print Pack Industries

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

14.

ITA No.47 of 2017 M/s Shri Ram Print N Pack

…Appellant.

…3…

versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

15.

ITA No.49 of 2017 M/s Shri Ram Print N Pack

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax n…Respondent.

16.

ITA No.50 of 2017 M/s Asa Bioctech

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

17.

ITA No.51 of 2017 M/s Curetech Skincare

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

18.

ITA No.52 of 2017 M/s Curetech Skincare

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

19.

ITA No.53 of 2017 M/s Pharma Chemico Laboratories

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

20.

ITA No.54 of 2017 M/s Asa Bioctech

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

21.

ITA No.61 of 2017 Shri Rajeev Aggarwal

…Appellant. versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax …Respondent.

…4…

Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. For the Appellants : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Mr. Chandranarayana Singh, Mr. Amit Singh Chandel, Mr. Pardeep Kumar Sharma, Mr. Navlesh Verma & Mr. Nikhil Guleria, Mr. Shshant Keprate, Advocates.

For the Respondent : Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate, with Ms Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate.

Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice

Certain points required clarifications. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms.Vandana Kuthiala, learned counsel, has already completed his submissions. Matter was listed for clarifications only from the appellants. Re-heard.

2.

Undisputedly, issues involved in the present appeals already stand adjudicated by this Court in ITA No.20/2015, titled as M/s Stovekraft India v. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on 28.11.2017. 3. As such, making the directions in M/s Stovekraft India (supra) applicable mutatis mutandi, also to the present appeals, the same are disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

( Sanjay Karol ),

Acting Chief Justice

( Ajay Mohan Goel ), February 26, 2018(sd)

Judge.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →