What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the review petition was not maintainable as it was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. The court noted that liberty was granted to the Revenue to revive the appeal if they succeeded in their SLP before the Apex Court.

The Revenue filed a review petition seeking to review a previous order of the High Court. This review was filed due to a subsequent Supreme Court judgment on the same issue.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of a review petition when liberty was granted to revive an appeal based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision.

PCIT vs M/S Durdundeshwar Urban | Karnataka High Court 2018

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR REVIEW PETITION No.100272/2017 IN ITA No.100178/2015 BETWEEN:

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BELAGAVI.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, GOKAK.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:

M/S DURDUNDESHWAR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., SANKESHWAR, TAL:HUKKERI, DIST:BELAGAVI-590 001, PAN:AAAAS 5612D.

…RESPONDENT

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2016 PASSED IN THE ITA No.100178/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, B.V.NAGARATHNA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER Petitioners have filed this review petition invoking Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The said petition has been filed in view of the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court subsequent to the disposal of the appeal by the Division Bench of this Court on 05.01.2016 in ITA No.100178 of 2015. On perusal of the said judgment, it is noted that the Division Bench of this Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in the event, Revenue succeeds in the SLP filed before the Apex Court on the same issue. In that view of the matter, the review petition is not maintainable. Hence, it is dismissed reserving liberty to petitioners to revive the appeal in accordance with law if so advised.

3 In view of the dismissal of the review petition, IA-I/2018 also stands dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE

Jm/-

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DURDUNDESHWAR URBAN

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments