The Karnataka High Court reiterated that, in the absence of contrary Supreme Court directions or distinguishing facts, writ appeals challenging High Court decisions quashing PBPT Act proceedings cannot be entertained, especially when the Review Petition against the Supreme Court’s ruling remains pending. The decision follows existing precedent and grants the Revenue liberty to seek recall if the Supreme Court’s review succeeds; it thus reaffirms current binding authority for PBPT Act matters, pending outcome of further review.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/100468/2024 of THE INITIATING OFFICER AND ANOTHER Vs SHRI VITTAL RANGAPPA DURGANNAVAR |
| CNR | KAHC020168302024 |
| Date of Registration | 26-09-2024 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Krishna S. Dixit, Vijaykumar A. Patil |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka |
| Bench | Division Bench (Krishna S. Dixit, Vijaykumar A. Patil) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on Karnataka subordinate courts; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms order of learned Single Judge and follows Supreme Court decision |
| Type of Law | Tax Law (Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988) |
| Questions of Law | Should writ appeals be permitted to proceed where the impugned order follows binding Supreme Court precedent, pending review? |
| Ratio Decidendi | Where a writ petition is allowed by following a binding Supreme Court decision (Ganapathi Dealcom), and there are no distinguishable facts, a subsequent writ appeal cannot be maintained while the review petition against such Supreme Court decision is pending. Parties have liberty to seek recall if the Supreme Court’s review succeeds. Treating ‘like cases alike’ is a cardinal principle; absence of repugnant facts precludes different outcomes. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 5783/2022 & SLP (C) No. 2784/2020 (pending review) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Principle of treating like cases alike; binding value of Supreme Court precedent unless stayed or set aside; propriety in judicial consistency |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The order under appeal had quashed PBPT Act proceedings by relying on Ganapathi Dealcom (Supreme Court). Revenue’s counsel confirmed no distinguishing facts. A review petition against Ganapathi Dealcom is pending before the Supreme Court. |
| Citations | Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 5783/2022, SLP (C) No. 2784/2020 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Karnataka |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tax appellate forums |
| Follows | Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 5783/2022, SLP (C) No. 2784/2020 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that writ appeals challenging High Court orders which follow binding Supreme Court precedent cannot be sustained, unless distinguishing facts or subsequent Supreme Court directions exist.
- Establishes that pendency of a review petition before the Supreme Court does not dilute the binding effect of the precedent unless a stay is granted.
- Revenue retains right to seek recall if the Supreme Court allows the review petition in Ganapathi Dealcom.
- The principle of treating ‘like cases alike’ applies unless there are repugnant circumstances on record.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench noted the appeal concerned substantially similar facts to earlier decided cases (notably, W.A. No.1060/2023).
- It observed the Single Judge allowed the writ petition by applying Supreme Court precedent (Ganapathi Dealcom).
- The bench invoked the principle: like cases must be treated alike, absent distinguishing or repugnant facts—which were not present in this matter.
- The bench acknowledged the Revenue’s fair concession that the case is indistinguishable, and clarified that pending review before the Supreme Court does not displace the existing binding effect of its decision.
- Thus, it held the appeal cannot be maintained; the Revenue, however, is given liberty to move for recall should the Supreme Court’s review succeed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Revenue):
- The Single Judge’s order relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ganapathi Dealcom.
- Informed the court that a Review Petition against Ganapathi Dealcom is pending before the Supreme Court.
Respondent:
- No separate submission recorded; agreed that facts are not distinguishable from those considered in similar earlier cases.
Factual Background
The appeal arose from a writ petition allowed by the Single Judge, wherein the PBPT Act proceedings initiated against the respondent were quashed based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ganapathi Dealcom. The Revenue’s attempt to reopen the matter via writ appeal leaned solely on the pendency of the Supreme Court’s review. There were no distinguishing factual circumstances presented.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment refers to the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act), but does not specifically interpret any section. Emphasis is placed on the application of judicial precedent and the binding effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ganapathi Dealcom on proceedings under the PBPT Act.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded; the judgment is per curiam.
Procedural Innovations
The court provided a procedural liberty to the Revenue, clarifying that it may seek recall of this order if the pending Supreme Court Review Petition is allowed. It also declined to decide on condonation of delay, as the substantive appeal itself was dismissed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law (Ganapathi Dealcom) affirmed as binding, with liberty regarding future review outcome.
Citations
- Union of India v. Ganapathi Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 5783/2022, SLP (C) No. 2784/2020 (order dated 08.02.2024)