Case Law Details
Brief of the Case: In the case of CIT vs M/s.Meghalaya Steels Ltd. the Supreme Court held that High Courts being Courts of Record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would in fact inhere in them. Section 260A(7) only states that all the provisions that would apply qua appeals in the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to appeals under Section 260A. That does not in any manner suggest either that the other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are necessarily excluded or that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is in any manner affected.
Facts of the Case: The Civil Appeal arose out of two judgments delivered by the High Court of judicature at Guwahati. By the first judgment various points on merits were gone into, inter alia, as to whether deductions to be made under Section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were allowable on facts and whether transport subsidies were or were not available together with other incentives. Ultimately the High Court the first question so framed in favour of Revenue. The second question was answered in favour of the assessee and the appeal was disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Against the aforesaid judgment, a Review Petition was filed by the assessee before the very Division Bench. In a long judgment dated 08.04.2013, the Division Bench recalled its earlier order in the following terms:
“In the present case, since this Court did not formulate the substantial questions of law for adjudication before hearing of the appeal on merit, there can be no escape from the conclusion that hearing of the appeal prior to its admission has to be treated as a hearing on the admission of the appeal in order to determine if the substantial questions of law, as contended by the appellants, had or had not arisen and it was only upon having formulated the questions of law, which according to the High Court, were the substantial questions of law for adjudication in the appeal that the appeal could or ought to have been heard.
As the omission, on our part, to formulate the substantial questions of law and, then, invite the parties to have their say in the matter amount to denial of opportunity of effective hearing to the parties concerned, particularly, to the review petitioners, we must have the magnanimity and courage to acknowledge our mistake, recall the judgment and order dated 16.09.2010, and, then, decide the appeal, on merit, after having formulated the substantial questions of law, which this Court may deem necessary for adjudication of the appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
