COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. MADHUSUDAN INDUSTRIES LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted the liberty sought by the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The judgment does not delve into the merits of the substantive tax dispute, as the appeal was withdrawn by the Revenue. Therefore, no finding on the taxability or any specific issue related to the assessment year is recorded. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with the specified liberty.
What were the facts?
This case involves an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II (the Revenue) against Madhusudan Industries Ltd (the Assessee). The appeal pertains to an assessment year not explicitly stated in the provided text. The Revenue, through its learned counsel, submitted a note along with a communication from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial). This communication instructed the counsel to withdraw the appeal. The reason cited for withdrawal was that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, and the case did not fall under any exceptional clauses. The Revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal with a reservation of right to revive it if any discrepancy was later discovered.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Revenue should be permitted to withdraw the appeal, given that the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and the case does not fall into any exceptional categories. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the Assessee. The Assessee's counsel, Mr. B.S. Soparkar, is listed as appearing, but their arguments are not detailed. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel Ms. Mauna Bhatt, submitted a note and a communication from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial). This communication instructed the withdrawal of the appeal because the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, and the case did not fit any exceptional clauses. The Revenue sought permission to withdraw with liberty to revive the appeal if any discrepancy arises later, acknowledging the possibility of human error.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant has submitted a note together with a communication dated 29.10.2018 of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial), for Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad, instructing her to withdraw the appeal as the tax effect is below the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/- and the case does not fall in the exceptional clauses as per the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, reserving a right to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after withdrawal of the appeal as human error cannot be ruled out. She, accordingly, seeks permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty as aforesaid.
Permission as prayed for is granted. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (A. P. THAKER, J) Vijay
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
