COMMR. OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S THE SIDDESHWAR CO-OP BANK LTD

PDF · subscribers
C.A. No.-009904-009904 - 2010Supreme Court15 November 20102 pages
For Petitioner: B. V. BALARAM DAS
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court disposed of the present appeal in the same terms as the earlier dismissed SLP. However, it permitted the appellants to approach the High Court for a review if they could establish a distinction between the present case and the previously decided ones.

What were the facts?

The appeal arose from a High Court judgment that was covered by a previous Division Bench ruling. The Supreme Court had previously dismissed a Special Leave Petition against that earlier ruling.

What were the issues?

Whether the present appeal is covered by a previous Supreme Court decision, and if not, whether a distinction can be drawn to warrant a review.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CA NO. of 2010 @ SlP(C) 4621 of 2007 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APEPAL NO. 9904 OF 2010 ARISING OUT OF SLP (c) NO. 4621 OF 2007 COMMR. OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS M/S THE SIDDESHWAR COOP BANK LTD. RESPONDENT O R D E R 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. In paragraph 3 of the impugned order, it finds clear mention that the matter was covered by a Division Bench Judgment of the High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sri Ram Sahakari Bank Ltd. The learned Additional Solicitor General very fairly points out that a Special Leave Petition against the aforesaid judgment has been dismissed by this Court by order dated 6th January, 2006 in SLP(C) 9414 of 2003 and other connected matters. We dispose of this appeal in the same terms. The Additional Solicitor General, however, submits that

CA NO. of 2010 @ SlP(C) 4621 of 2007 2 there is a distinction between the earlier decided cases and the present one. If that be so, in the light of the fact that the present matter is being disposed of ex parte, we permit the appellants to approach the High Court to draw the distinction, if any, by filing an application for review. .......................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI] .......................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD] NEW DELHI, NOVEMBER 15, 2010.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →