The Commissioner of Income Tax-IV vs. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd.,

ITTA/215/2007HC TelanganaHBHC01025297200715 April 2015Bench: A RAMALINGESWARA RAO,DILIP B. BHOSALE2 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, after perusing the questions raised in the appeals and the questions considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Baby Marine Exports, found that the appeals deserved to be dismissed. The Court held that the substantial questions of law raised in these appeals should be answered in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeals accordingly, with no order as to costs. No specific issue was left undecided; the Court found all substantial questions of law to be covered by the Supreme Court precedent.

What were the facts?

These are three appeals filed by the Revenue: I.T.T.A.Nos.118 of 2004, 215 of 2007, and 71 of 2008. The appeals arise from orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee's counsel submitted that the questions of law in all these appeals are covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. Baby Marine Exports, Kollam. The assessee's counsel further pointed out that the ITAT's decision in the present cases was based on its earlier order in Baby Marine Exports v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, which was upheld by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court. The Revenue's counsel did not dispute these submissions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the questions of law raised in the appeals are covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. Baby Marine Exports, Kollam. (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the questions of law in all the appeals are squarely covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. Baby Marine Exports, Kollam. The assessee relied on the ITAT's judgment in I.T.A.Nos.47 and 48 of 1998, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue should be dismissed, with all questions answered in favour of the assessees. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent-assessee were not disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

I.T.T.A.Nos.118 of 2004, 215 of 2007 & 71 of 2008

COMMON JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Dilip B.Bhosale)

Ms. K. Uma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – assessee in I.T.T.A.Nos.215 of 2007 and 71 of 2008, submits that the questions raised in all the appeals, including I.T.T.A.No.118 of 2004, are squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram v. Baby Marine Exports, Kollam and that the appeals filed by the revenue deserve to be dismissed answering all the questions in favour of the assessees and against the revenue. She also invited our attention to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal from which I.T.T.A.No.215 of 2007 and 71 of 2008 are arising from and submitted that the Tribunal decided the appeals on the basis of its judgment in I.T.A.Nos.47 and 48 of 1998 dated 31.03.2000 in Baby Marine Exports v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. She submits that the order of the Tribunal dated 31.03.2000 was carried to the High Court and then to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal. In short, she submits that the questions raised in the instant appeals deserve to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessees. The submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent – assessee, have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the revenue. We have perused the questions raised in these appeals and so also the questions that fell for consideration of the Supreme Court, in Baby Marine Exports’s case (supra) and we find that these appeals deserve to be dismissed, answering substantial question of law raised herein in favour of the assessees and against the

revenue. Order accordingly. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of. __________________ DILIP B.BHOSALE,J

______________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J Dt:15.04.2015

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →