What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found that the controversy was covered by a previous Division Bench order. Consequently, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the CAT's order.

The petitioners, Chairman of CBDT and Revenue Secretary, challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in favour of respondent No. 1. The CAT's order had allowed an application preferred by respondent No. 1.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The court considered a previous binding precedent on the matter.

Chairman vs Sri. U A Chandramouli | Karnataka High Court 2020

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.46552 OF 2018 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

CHAIRMAN CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

REVENUE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

... PETITIONERS (BY SMT. M.C. NAGASHREE, ADV.)

AND:

SRI.U.A. CHANDRAMOULI S/O LATE U.ASWATHANARAYANAIAH, R/AT NO.32,1ST CROSS,

2 20TH MAIN, BRM LAYOUT 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 068.

CHAIRMAN UNION PUBLIC SERVICES COMMISSION, DHOLPUR HOUSE,SHAHJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 069

INQUIRY OFFICER & COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(DRP) C R BUILDINGS, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001 REP. BY SRI OM PRAKASH YADAV

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.V.SESHACHALA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W. SRI.ARVIND V.CHAVAN, ADV. FOR R1;)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH IN O.A.NO.170/00055/2017 DATED 08.11.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE - C ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER

Smt. M.C.Nagashree, learned counsel for the petitioners.

3 Sri M.V.Seshachala, learned senior counsel along with Sri Arvind V. Chavan, learned counsel for respondents.

In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are inter alia have assailed the validity of the order dated 08.11.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru in Original Application No.170/55/2017, by which the said application preferred by respondent No.1 has been allowed.

When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the parties submitted that the controversy in the instant petition is squarely covered by the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.16987- 16988 of 2018.

In view of the aforesaid submission and for the reasons assigned by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid decision, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 08.11.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.170/55/2017.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE nvj

CHAIRMAN vs. SRI. U A CHANDRAMOULI

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments