THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S FIBRES & FABRICS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court found no substance in the Revenue's review petition. It held that the circular and the previous judgment were not applicable to the facts of the case and therefore dismissed the review petition.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed a review petition challenging a High Court order that dismissed their appeal due to a low tax effect. The Revenue argued that the previous order and a related circular were not applicable as the tax effect was recurring.
What were the issues?
Whether the High Court's previous order dismissing the appeal based on tax effect was justified, considering the recurring nature of the tax effect.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2014
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR
REVIEW PETITION No.193 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
MANGALORE.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE – 2(1), MANGALORE.
….PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.V. ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S. BOLA RAGHAVENDRA KAMATH AND SONS, KUKKUNDUR, KARKALA, CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 576 117.
… RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.296/2007, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N. KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2 O R D E R
This Review Petition is preferred challenging the order passed by this Court dismissing the appeal –ITA No.296/2007 on 09.10.2007 holding that the net tax effect is less than Rs.10.00 lakhs in terms of Instruction No.3/2011 and reserving liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in the event of the Revenue succeeds in the Supreme Court.
This Review Petition is filed contending that neither the circular nor the judgment of this court passed in I.T.A. No.3191/2005 disposed of on 02.11.2011 (CIT Vs. RANKA & RANKA), is applicable to the facts of this case, as the tax effect in this case is recurring in nature. We do not see any substance in the said petition. Therefore, we do not see any justification to review the order. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.
Petitioner’s counsel is permitted to carry-out necessary corrections to remove the office objections.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE KGR*
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026