What did the High Court hold?

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

The Revenue filed a review petition seeking to review a previous High Court order. This was based on a subsequent Supreme Court judgment on the same issue. The High Court had previously granted liberty to the Revenue to revive their appeal if they succeeded before the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

Whether a review petition is maintainable when the original order already provides for revival of the appeal based on a subsequent event, such as a Supreme Court judgment.

PCIT vs Shri Mahalaxmi Urban Co-Operative | 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.100191 OF 2017 IN ITA No.100030 OF 2016

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

SHRI MAHALAXMI URBAN CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., MUDALAGI, TALUK GOKAK PAN:AAAAS 6803J ... 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.100030 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.

2 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.100030 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 INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MAHALAXMI 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