2000 JTR(SC) 1976
2001 AIR(SCW) 4757 ; 2001 168 CTR 3 ; 2001 249 ITR 219 ; 2001 4 Scale 227 ; 2001 10 SCC 231 ; 2001 6 SLT 52 ; 2001 117 Taxman 375
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.Santosh Hegde : S.P.Bharucha : Y.K.Sabharwal
Union Of India
Versus
Kaumudini Narayan Dalal
Case No. : 7333 of 1996
Date of Decision : 12/6/00
A party cannot selectively challenge a judicial precedent by accepting its application in one case while contesting its correctness in another similar case without providing a just cause.
Act
Referred
:INCOME TAX ACT
: S.261
(A) Revenue Law - Consistency in litigation - If a party does not accept the correctness of a judgment in one case, it should prefer an appeal against that judgment - It is not open to a party to accept a judgment in the case of one assessee and challenge its correctness in the case of other assessees without just cause. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
The Revenue challenged an order passed by the court below which followed a precedent set in an earlier judgment. While it was suggested that a special leave petition had been filed against the earlier judgment, no instructions or evidence were provided to prove the fate of that appeal or explain why no appeal was pursued.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that if the Revenue disagreed with the correctness of the precedent, it should have filed an appeal and tracked its outcome. The Revenue cannot selectively accept a judgment for one individual and challenge it for others without just cause.
Issues: Whether a party can challenge a court order that follows a precedent if that party has failed to successfully challenge the original precedent itself.
Ratio Decidendi: A party is precluded from challenging the application of a judicial precedent in one case if they have accepted that same precedent in another similar case without a just cause for the discrepancy in their position.
Result: Civil appeal dismissed.
Facts of the case:
The Revenue challenged an order passed by the court below which followed a precedent set in an earlier judgment. While it was suggested that a special leave petition had been filed against the earlier judgment, no instructions or evidence were provided to prove the fate of that appeal or explain why no appeal was pursued.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that if the Revenue disagreed with the correctness of the precedent, it should have filed an appeal and tracked its outcome. The Revenue cannot selectively accept a judgment for one individual and challenge it for others without just cause.
Issues: Whether a party can challenge a court order that follows a precedent if that party has failed to successfully challenge the original precedent itself.
Ratio Decidendi: A party is precluded from challenging the application of a judicial precedent in one case if they have accepted that same precedent in another similar case without a just cause for the discrepancy in their position.
Result: Civil appeal dismissed.
Precedent - The High Court followed this judgment, and since the Revenue did not effectively challenge it, the Supreme Court upheld the outcome.
S.P.BHARUCHA, J.
(1) THE order under challenge in this appeal by the Revenue followed the earlier judgment of the same High Court in the case of Pradip Ramanlal Sheth v. Union of India & Ors. (204 ITR 866). 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, it should have preferred an appeal there against 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 this matter and dismiss the civil appeal.
(3) NO order as to costs.