What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the review petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that the liberty granted to revive the appeal was the appropriate recourse, rather than a review.

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 the appeal if they succeeded before the Apex Court.

What were the issues?

Whether a review petition is maintainable when liberty was granted to revive an appeal based on a subsequent Supreme Court decision, and if the existing liberty to revive the appeal is the correct procedural path.

PCIT vs M/S Shree Beereshwar Souharda | 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.100107 OF 2017 IN ITA No.100023 OF 2016

BETWEEN

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), DIST.BELAVAGI. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND

M/S SHRI BEERESHWAR SOUHARDA CREDIT SAHAKARI LIMITED TQ. CHIKKODI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT 591 102 PAN:AAAAB 1339 C ... 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.100023 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.100023 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. M/S SHREE BEERESHWAR SOUHARDA

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