S.C : Learned counsel for the respondents states that their enquiries with the Registry reveal that no appeal against that judgment was preferred by the Revenue.

Supreme Court Of India

Union Of India vs. Satish Panalal Shah

Sections 261, 269UC

S.P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde & Y.K. Sabharwal, JJ.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1157 of 1998, 1161 to 1167 of 1998 & 4154 of 1999

6th December, 2000

Counsel Appeared

T.L.V. Iyer with Mrs. Laxmi Iyengar, Ajay Sharma, S.K. Dwivedi & Ms. Sushma Suri, for the Appellant : R.P. Bhatt with Mayur R. Shah, Goodwill Indeevar, Chirag M. Shroff, M.N. Shroff, Kavin Gulati, Jatin Zaveri, Harish J. Jhaveri, B.K. Satya & H.C. Parihar, for the Respondents.

ORDER

BY THE COURT :

The order under challenge in these appeals by the Revenue followed the earlier judgment of the same High Court in the case of Pradip Ramanlal Sheth vs. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 113 CTR (Guj) 75 : (1993) 204 ITR 866 (Guj). Learned counsel for the Revenue states that the papers before us suggest that a special leave petition was preferred against that judgment but he has no instructions as to what happened thereafter. Learned counsel for the respondents states that their enquiries with the Registry reveal that no appeal against that judgment was preferred by the Revenue.

2. If the Revenue did not accept the correctness of the judgment in the case of Pradip Ramanlal Sheth, (supra) it should have preferred an appeal thereagainst and instructed counsel as to what the fate of that appeal was or why no appeal was filed. It is not open to the Revenue to accept that judgment in the case of the assessee in that case and challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees without just cause. For this reason, we decline to consider the correctness of the decision of the High Court in these matters and dismiss the civil appeals.

No order as to costs.

[Citation : 249 ITR 221]

Malcare WordPress Security