Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. M/s. G.V.V.Prasad AND others

PDF · subscribers
ITTA/236/2007HC TelanganaHBHC01037991200722 March 2016Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no justification to interfere with the Single Judge's decision. They agreed that the government's policy regarding extensions, based on its needs, cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the appellants.

What were the facts?

The appellants challenged the dismissal of their petitions by the learned Single Judge. The appeals were based on the contention that the Single Judge misinterpreted a Supreme Court judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellants have a right to claim extension of benefits based on government policy, and if the Single Judge correctly interpreted relevant Supreme Court judgments.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 236 / 2007 Dr.Bhagwan Das Kiraroo ----Appellant Versus State ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 237 / 2007 Laxmi Narain Khatri ----Appellant Versus State ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.C. Goyal, with Ms Sukriti Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.M. Saxena, AAG Mr. S.L. Songara _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Order 11/05/2017 1. Both these appeals arise out of common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge hence they are decided by this common judgment. 2. By way of these appeals the appellant has challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitions.

(2 of 3) [SAW-236/2007]

3.

Counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted the judgment of Supreme Court which has been relied upon. 4. He has relied upon following the decision. 1. U. P. State Road Transport Corporation And Another V/s Mohd. Ismail and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 239. 2. Ravinder Nath V/s State of Rajasthan and Others 1992(3) WLC (Raj.) 153. 3. Hirday Narain V/s Income-Tax Officer, AIR 1971 SC 33 4. B. N. Kirpal, A.P. Misra And Ruma Pal JJ. (2000) 7 SCC 425 5. Ramanathan V/s Union of India and Others (2001) 2 SCC 118.

5.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. In our considered opinion this court on 27th April, 2007 passed the following order:- “We find no justification to continue the interim order. In case the appellant ultimately succeeds in the appeal, obviously he will get all consequential benefits that he would be entitled to.” 7. Even when the petition was filed, the appellant was 60 years of age. It is a policy matter of Government to grant extension in question of additional benefits according to their law needs of the subject at the relevant time. If the Government has made the policy not to extend, in our considered opinion, the appellant- petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right. 8. We are in complete agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge. 9. The appeals stand dismissed.

(3 of 3) [SAW-236/2007]

A copy of this judgment be placed in connected file.

(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS),J. (K.S. JHAVERI),J. B. M. Gandhi/7-8

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →