THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

PDF · subscribers
ITA/103/2013HC KarnatakaKAHC01007460201305 June 2013Bench: D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR,B.S.INDRAKALA4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the circular in question was retrospective, and their earlier decision based on it was correct. However, they granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal if they succeeded in a future Supreme Court case.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed a review petition to recall an earlier order that dismissed their appeal due to a low tax effect. The Supreme Court had directed them to bring a specific circular to the High Court's notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the circular regarding tax effect was retrospective and if the earlier order dismissing the appeal needed review.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH

REVIEW PETITION NO.103 OF 2013 IN ITA NO.736 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

1.

Commissioner of Income Tax No.55/1, Shilpashri, Vidyaranyapura Complex, Vishveshwarapuram, Mysore.

2.

The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range -1, Mysore. …PETITIONERS

(By Sri E.I.Sanmathi, Advocate)

AND:

M/s.Habib Agro Industries,

2 PB.No.155, Boothana Hosadurga, Mandya. …RESPONDENT

*****

This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 CPC praying to review the order dated 21.3.2012 passed in ITA.No.736/2009.

This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, N.Kumar J., made the following:-

ORDER

This review petition is filed to review the order dated 21.03.2012 in I.T.A. No.736/2009.

2.

Following the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Ranka and Ranka in ITA No.3191/2005, decided on 2.11.2011, we had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the net tax effect is less than Rs.10,00,000/-. The Revenue preferred an appeal to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the said Special Leave Petition, with an observation that the appellant should bring it to the notice of this court the Clause-11

3 of the Circular No.3/2011, dated 09.02.2011, and therefore this review petition is filed.

2.

In the case of the Commissioner of Income tax vs. M/s. Ranka and Ranka in ITA No.3191/2005, this Court had an occasion to consider Clause-11 of the Circular dated 09.02.2011, wherein the Revenue contended that it is only prospective. After considering this contention and following several judgments including that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we have held that the circular is retrospective in operation. Therefore, the question of again considering Clause-11 of the circular dated 09.02.2011 would not arise. The aforesaid judgment fully covers this case. Hence, we do not see any justification to review our earlier order.

4 3. However, in all such cases we have reserved liberty to the Revenue to seek for revival of the appeal in the event they succeed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Such a liberty is not reserved to the Revenue in this appeal. Under these circumstances, we reserve such a liberty. To that extent, the review petition is allowed.

The application filed seeking condonation of delay is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →