What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the review petition, stating it could not keep the matter pending. However, it granted the Revenue liberty to seek a review if the Supreme Court overturns the precedent relied upon.

The Revenue sought a review of a High Court order that dismissed their appeal due to a low tax effect. The Revenue wanted to await a Supreme Court decision on a related matter concerning the retrospective nature of an instruction.

What were the issues?

Whether a review petition can be kept pending awaiting a Supreme Court decision on a related matter. The primary issue was the dismissal of the appeal based on tax effect, with a secondary consideration of the retrospective nature of an instruction.

CIT vs M/S Poonja Arcade | Karnataka High Court 2012

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 6th day of July, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH RP No. 736 of 2012 IN ITA No. 504 of 2006 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax C.R.Building Attavara Mangalore. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1) Attavara Mangalore. …Petitioners (By Sri M.Thirumalesh, Adv.) AND: M/s. Poonja Arcade K.S. Road Mangalore. …Respondent

2 This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying for review of the order dated 22-02-2012 passed in ITA No.504 of 2006 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, N KUMAR J., made the following:- O R D E R The Revenue is seeking to review the order passed by this Court on 22.2.2012 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 of 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. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ca

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S POONJA ARCADE

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments