What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court. The matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on its merits in accordance with the law.

The Supreme Court heard an appeal arising from a High Court judgment. The court considered the law laid down in a previous case, Union of India and Ors. vs. Gurmeet Kalra.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the applicability of the law laid down in a previous Supreme Court judgment to the present case, necessitating a fresh consideration by the High Court.

CIT vs Rajendra Kumar Verma | Supreme Court 2015

Page 1 JUDGMENT Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14074 OF 2015 (arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No.34982 of 2013)

CIT (CENTRAL) KANPUR & ORS. ... APPELLANT(S) VS. RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA

... RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T Anil R. Dave, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. In view of the law laid down in Civil Appeal No.2429 of 2015 (Union of India and Ors. vs. Gurmeet Kalra), in our opinion this matter deserves to be remanded to the High Court. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision on its merits in accordance with law. 5. Parties shall appear before the High Court for further proceedings on 11th January, 2016. 6. Pending applications stand disposed of. 7. There shall be no order as to costs.

..............J. [ANIL R. DAVE] ..................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi; 4th December, 2015.

Page 2 JUDGMENT ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.2 SECTION IIIA S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 34982/2013 (From the judgment and order dated 20/08/2010 in WP No.8540/2009 passed by the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow) CIT (CENTRAL) KANPUR & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA Respondent(s) Date : 04/12/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL For Petitioner(s) Mr. P.S. Patwalia,ASG Ms. Niranjana Singh,Adv. Mr. Arijit Prasad,Adv. Mr. S.A.Haseeb,Adv. For Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. K.Sampat,Adv. Ms. Priyanka Soni,Adv. Mrs Rani Chhabra,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted. The appeal is allowed in terms of the non-reportable judgment.

(Anita Malhotra)

(Sneh Bala Mehra)

Court Master

Assistant Registrar (Non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.)

CIT (CENTRAL) KANPUR vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR VERMA

What did the Supreme Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments