What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a pending appeal before the Apex Court on a similar issue is not a valid ground for review. The court found no substantial question of law to warrant a review.

The Income Tax Department filed a review petition seeking to review a previous High Court order. The department's sole ground for review was that a similar matter was pending before the Apex Court.

What were the issues?

Whether a pending appeal before the Apex Court on a similar issue constitutes a valid ground for review of a High Court order. Whether there was a substantial question of law involved to justify a review.

CIT vs M/S Teachers Co-Operative Society… | Karnataka High Court 2016

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2016

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B MANOHAR REVIEW PETITION NO.789/2015 IN ITA NO.139/2015

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX C.R. BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), C.R. BUILDING, ATTAVARA, MANGALORE

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.DILIP & SRI.E.I.SANMATHI, ADVOCATES FOR SRI.ARAVIND.K.V, ADVOCATE)

2 AND:

M/S. TEACHER’S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD P.B.NO.9,VITTAL-574 243 BANTWAL TALUK PAN:AAALTO180G

...RESPONDENT

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:01/09/2015 PASSED IN ITA NO.139/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

We have heard Mr.E.I.Sanmathi, with Mr.Dilip, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. The only ground of review pressed in service in the present petition is the decision of this Court in ITA No.5006/2013 which is carried by the Department before the Apex Court and the SLP is pending.

3 3. In our view, such can hardly be termed as a valid ground for review. When the issue was already covered by the decision of this Court and this Court has found that there is no substantial question of law involved, we do not find that such decision deserves to be reviewed on the ground as sought to be canvassed. 4. Hence, there is no merit in the review petition. Therefore, dismissed. 5. Since the petition is dismissed, the office objection shall not survive.

Sd/- JUDGE

JT/-

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S TEACHERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD

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