THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S CANBANK FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD

PDF · subscribers
RP/608/2011HC KarnatakaKAHC01079634201115 June 2012Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,N.KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Revenue's remedy was to seek revival of the original appeal, not to file a review petition. The review petition was rejected with liberty to the Revenue to seek revival.

What were the facts?

The Revenue sought a review of a High Court order that allowed the assessee to revive an appeal if the Apex Court reviewed a specific case. The Apex Court subsequently passed an order on April 8, 2011.

What were the issues?

Whether a review petition is the appropriate remedy to seek revival of an appeal based on a subsequent Supreme Court order. The proper procedure to revive a previously disposed of appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 15th day of June, 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR RP No. 608 of 2011 IN ITA No. 1390 of 2006 BETWEEN: 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax C.R. Building Queens Road Bangalore 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-6 C.R. Building Queens Road Bangalore …Petitioners (By Sri K.V. Aravind, Advocate)

2 AND: M/s. Canbank Financial Services Ltd., 6th Floor, Naveen Complex 14, M.G. Road Bangalore …Respondent This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC praying for review of the order dated 10-11-2010 passed in ITA No.1390 of 2006 on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. This Review Petition coming on for orders this day, ARAVIND KUMAR J., made the following:- O R D E R Petitioner is seeking for review of the order passed by this Court on 10.11.2010 whereunder this Court has held that in the event of Apex Court reviewing the ONGC’s case reported in (2004) 6 SCC 437, appellant would be at liberty to revive the appeal. 2. In view of the Apex Court order dated 8.4.2011, the remedy available to the petitioner is to seek revival of the order passed by this Court on 10.11.2010 by filing an appropriate application in the said appeal and not seeking review of the

3 order. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek for revival of the order passed by this Court on 10.11.2010, this review petition is rejected.

Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE ckl

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →