What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the review petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that the original order already provided a mechanism for the Revenue to revive the appeal based on the outcome of their SLP before the Supreme Court.

The Revenue filed a review petition seeking to review a previous High Court order. This review was filed after a Supreme Court judgment on a similar issue, and the original order had granted liberty to revive the appeal if the Revenue succeeded before the Apex Court.

What were the issues?

Whether a review petition is maintainable when the original order already grants liberty to revive the appeal based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision.

The Principal Commissioner of vs M/S. Shivabodhrang Urban… | Karnataka High Court 2018

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JUNE 2018 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR REVIEW PETITION No.100253 OF 2017 IN ITA No.100029 OF 2016

BETWEEN

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

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, GOKAK

KARNATAKA. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND

M/S SHIVABODHRANG URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUDALAGI, TALUK GOKAK DIST. BELGAVI 590 002 PAN:AAAAS 6801 L. ... RESPONDENT

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2016 PASSED IN THE ITA NO.100029 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE

2 HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.

THIS REVIEW 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 10.02.2016 in ITA No.100029 of 2016. 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 dismissal of the review petition, I.A.1 of 2017 seeking condonation of delay also stands dismissed.

Sd/- JUDGE

Kmv

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF vs. M/S. SHIVABODHRANG URBAN CO-OPERATIVE

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