What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the review petition, stating that the matter could not be kept pending. However, they granted liberty to the Revenue to seek a review if the Apex Court's decision overturns the current order.

The Revenue sought to review a High Court order that dismissed their appeal due to a low tax effect. They argued that the appeal should await a decision from the Apex Court regarding the retrospective nature of an instruction.

What were the issues?

Whether a review petition can be entertained pending a decision from the Apex Court on a related matter, and if liberty can be granted to seek review in the future.

Commissioner of Income vs M/S United Racing | Karnataka High Court 2012

- - 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012 P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N. KUMAR A N D THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH REVIEW PETITION No.805/2012 IN ITA No.388/2010 BETWEEN: 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12 (2) BANGALORE ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI E I SANMATHI, ADV.) AND: M/S UNITED RACING BLOODSTOCK BREEDERS LTD., NO.3, 7TH CROSS, U.B. CRECENT, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD BANGALORE-27 ...RESPONDENT

- - 2 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 2-11-2011 PASSED IN ITA 388/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE. THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS N. KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: - ORDER The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed by this Court on 2.11.2011 whereunder this Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the net tax effect which is the subject matter of the appeal was less than Rs.10,00,000/- by following the judgment of this Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S. RANKA AND RANKA, ITA No.3191/2005 disposed off on 2.11.2011. 2. It is submitted that the revenue is preferring an appeal against the order passed by this Court holding that the instruction No.3/2011 is retrospective in nature and therefore they submit that this petition has to await the decision of the Apex Court in the aforesaid appeal to be filed.

- - 3 3. On that ground it is not possible to keep this matter pending. All that we can do is, as the appeal is dismissed following the judgment in the aforesaid case of M/s. Ranka and Ranka, in the event of the Apex Court setting aside the said order and holding it as prospective, then it is open to the revenue to seek for review of the order. Reserving such liberty, this petition is dismissed. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A for condonation of delay is also dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE NG*

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME vs. M/S UNITED RACING

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