MS SRI SAI PRINT PACK INDUSTRIES vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
ITA/43/2017HC Himachal PradeshHPHC01016993201726 February 2018Bench: 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 appeals had already been adjudicated by the Court in ITA No.20/2015, titled M/s Stovekraft India v. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on 28.11.2017. Consequently, the Court directed that the directions issued in the Stovekraft India case be applied mutatis mutandis to the present appeals. As a result, all the present appeals were disposed of in line with the previous judgment. Any pending applications related to these appeals were also disposed of accordingly. The court did not delve into the specific facts or grounds of each individual appeal, relying solely on the precedent established in the Stovekraft India case.

What were the facts?

This judgment consolidates numerous Income Tax Appeals (ITAs) filed by various assessees, including M/s Hycron Electronics, M/s Usaka Electricals, M/s R.R. Lamps, M/s V.R. Paper Cone Industries, Captab Biotech, Aqua Vitoe Laboratories, Sai Bliss Drugs & Pharmaceuticals, M/s Mahabir Industries, M/s Sri Sai Print Pack Industries, M/s Shri Ram Print N Pack, M/s Asa Bioctech, M/s Curetech Skincare, M/s Pharma Chemico Laboratories, and Shri Rajeev Aggarwal. The appeals are against orders passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The appeals were reserved on 17.11.2017 and re-heard on 26.2.2018, with the decision being made on 26.2.2018. The High Court noted that the issues involved in these appeals had already been adjudicated by the same court in a previous case, ITA No.20/2015, titled M/s Stovekraft India v. Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on 28.11.2017.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appeals filed by the various assessees against the orders of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax should be decided on merits. The court needed to determine if the issues raised in these appeals were identical to those already decided in a previous case. The appellants, represented by various advocates, sought to have their appeals heard. The respondent, represented by senior advocate Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, had completed his submissions. The court's task was to apply the decision from the precedent case, M/s Stovekraft India v. Commissioner of Income Tax, to the present appeals.

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 →