What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no justification to review its earlier order. It reasoned that since the dismissal was solely on monetary grounds and not on merits, it would not impede the decision on the common principle involved in subsequent matters.

The High Court had previously dismissed the revenue's appeal due to it being below the monetary limit. The Supreme Court, however, granted the department liberty to move the High Court to argue that a specific circular should not be applied ipso facto, especially when the matter has a cascading effect.

What were the issues?

Whether the High Court should review its order dismissing an appeal on monetary grounds, given the Supreme Court's liberty to argue on the applicability of a circular with cascading effects.

CIT vs M/S. Ice Network (P) Ltd | Karnataka High Court 2015

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.KUMAR

AND

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR

REVIEW PETITION No.172 OF 2013 IN ITA No.546 OF 2008

BETWEEN :

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

(TDS), NO.59, HMT BHAVAN

4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD

GANGANAGAR

BANGALORE

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

(TDS) WARD -16(2)

NO.59, HMT BHAVAN

4TH FLOOR, BELLARY ROAD

GANGANAGAR

BANGALORE ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE)

AND :

M/S. ICE NETWORK (P) LTD., NO.647/10, BRINDAVAN COMPLEX RAJAJI NAGAR DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD BANGALORE – 560 010 ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.S.PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE)

2 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING FOR REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 03/10/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.546/2008, ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

THIS REVIEW PEITITOIN COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

In this case, when this Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue on the ground being less than the monetary limit, the said order was challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court has passed the following order:

“Delay condoned. Liberty is given to the Department to move the High Court pointing out that the Circular dated 9th February 2011, should not be applied ipso facto, particularly, when the matter has a cascading effect.

For that purpose, liberty is granted to the Department to move the High Court in two weeks.”

In view of the aforesaid Supreme Court order, this review petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the revenue submits that as the question involved in this petition is of recurring nature, it needs to be heard on merits and decided. What the Apex Court has said is, if any common principle is involved in the subsequent group of matters or large number of matters, then the case is to be decided on merits.

When this case is dismissed, the Court has not looked into the merits of the case. No law is laid down; it was dismissed only on the ground of monetary limits. If the very same principle is involved in the subsequent year or any subsequent group of matters or any large number of matters as pointed by the Apex Court, certainly dismissal of those appeals only on the ground of monetary limits would not come in the way of

4 this Court deciding the said common principle involved in any subsequent group of matters or any large number of matters. In that view of the matter, we do not see any justification to review the order. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

SD/- JUDGE

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. ICE NETWORK (P) LTD.

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments