COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S HABIB AGRO INDUSTRY
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the review petition, stating the matter could not be kept pending. However, they granted liberty to the Revenue to seek a review if the Supreme Court overturns the precedent relied upon.
What were the facts?
The Revenue sought a review of a High Court order that dismissed their appeal due to a low tax effect. They argued the instruction under appeal was retrospective and awaited a Supreme Court decision.
What were the issues?
Whether a review petition can be kept pending awaiting a Supreme Court decision on a related matter, and the retrospective nature of Instruction No. 3/2011.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
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. 755 of 2012 IN ITA No. 736 of 2009 BETWEEN: 1. Commissioner of Income Tax No.55/1, Shilpashree Vidyaranya Complex Vishveshwaranagar Mysore – 570008. 2. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range-1 Mysore. …Petitioners (By Sri E.I. Sanmathi, Adv.) AND: M/s. Habib Agro Industry P.B.No.155, Boothana Hosur Mandya. …Respondent
2 This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying for review of the order dated 21-03-2012 passed in ITA No.736 of 2009 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026