9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the considered view that there cannot be any impediment in following the said decision to cases arising out of similar set of facts and law. However, when a petition is filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal and the same having been converted into an appeal by the Supreme Court, the High Court should not entertain a review petition. The High Court also cannot reverse and modify the order impugned before the Supreme Court. But the judgment rendered by the High Court is not erased. - Decided in favour of assessee - Tax Case Appeal No. 405 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2016 - Mr. Justice S. Manikumar And D. Krishnakumar For the Appellant : Mr. T. Ravikumar JUDGMENT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er freight station (CFS) at Dabhog, Bowniput, Haldia, West Bengal 721 657 from 6/5/2003. On the basis of appellant's application to Ministry of Commerce, Appellant's above facility was notified as CFS by Commissioner of Customs, Kolkotta vide public notice 84/2003 on 10/11/2003 and the said CFS as 'customs area'. The said authority declared the appellant as custodian of the containers and the imported goods received in containers from Haldia Dock Complex and the goods meant for export through Haldia Port via their CFS at the above address vide public Notice B.No.85/03 dt 10/11/03. Import/Export procedures of appellant's CFS was also notified by the said authority through public Notice No.86/03 dt. 10/11/2003. 2. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid order, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1 (1), Chennai has preferred an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'B' Bench, Chennai. Taking note of an order on an identical issue, decided in the assessee's own case, in I.T.A.No.469/MDS/2014, dated 14th July 2014 and following the Delhi High Court judgment rendered in Container Corporation of India Ltd., Vs. ACIT {346 ITR 140 (Del)}, CESTAT Madras, dismissed the revenue appeal. 3. Testing the correctness of the same, instant Tax Case Appeal No.405 of 2016, has been raised on the following substantial questions of law:- (i). Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the disallowan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 87 DelHC and followed in the case of AL Logistics Pvt Ltd., is also under challenge in Appeal (Civil) No.8900 of 2012. 5. Based on the website information of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Mr.T.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that both the aforesaid civil appeals are likely to be listed on 1/7/2016 and in as much as a challenge to the orders made in M/s.AL Logistics P Ltd and M/s.Container Corporation of India Limited, are pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, instant Tax Appeal No.405 of 2016 be entertained and kept pending till the Hon'ble Supreme Court passes appropriate orders, in the pending Civil Appeals. 6. Contending interalia with the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 18/7/1983 passed by this Court. So it is available to be reviewed by the High Court. Moreover, such a right of review is now statutorily conferred on the High Court by sub-section (2) of Section 8-C of the Kerala Act. The legislature has taken care to confer the jurisdiction to review on the High Court as to such appellate orders, also against which though an appeal was carried to the Supreme Court, the same was not admitted by it. An appeal would be said to have been admitted by the Supreme Court if leave to appeal was granted. The constitutional validity of sub-section 92) of Section 8-C has not been challenged. Though, Shri.T.L.V.Iyer, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant made a feeble attempt at raising such a plea at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
