MS USAKA ELECTRICALS vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/2/2018HC Himachal PradeshHPHC01004188201714 March 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issues involved in the present appeal have already been adjudicated by the same Court in ITA No. 20 of 2015, titled M/s Stovekraft India V. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on 28.11.2017. Applying the directions from the aforementioned case mutatis mutandis to the present appeal, the Court disposed of the appeal. No specific finding on the merits of the assessee's case or the revenue's objections was made, as the decision was based on the precedent. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal in terms of the previous judgment. Any pending applications were also disposed of accordingly. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal is filed by M/s Usaka Electricals (the assessee) against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (the revenue). The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The specific order or action under challenge is not detailed. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history is that the High Court is hearing the appeal, and the court notes that the issues involved have already been adjudicated by the same 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.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the issues involved in the present appeal stand adjudicated by this Court in ITA No. 20 of 2015, titled M/s Stovekraft India V. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on 28.11.2017? (Question of fact). Assessee's Contention: The assessee has filed the appeal. No specific arguments are recorded for the assessee regarding the issues themselves, but the appeal is presented for adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The revenue is the respondent. No specific arguments are recorded for the revenue regarding the issues themselves, but the revenue is represented. The judgment does not explicitly state the specific grounds of appeal or the revenue's objections beyond the fact that the issues are stated to be already adjudicated.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

ITA No.2 of 2018

Date of Decision: 14.03.2018

_______ M/s Usaka Electricals

..Appellant.

Versus

Principal Commissioner of Income tax .Respondent.

Coram:

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the Appellant : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate.

__________ Sanjay Karol, ACJ. (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. 2.

As such, making the directions in M/s Stovekraft India (supra) applicable mutatis mutandi, also to the present appeal, the same is disposed of.

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

( Sanjay Karol),

Acting Chief Justice

14th March, 2018

( Sandeep Sharma ), ( shankar/manjit)

Judge.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →