ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court granted the Revenue's prayer to withdraw the appeal. The Court noted that the appellant had approached the High Court and filed the appeal within the statutory time limit. Therefore, liberty was granted to the appellant to file fresh proceedings, corrected and modified to the requisite extent, within a further period of six weeks from the date of the order. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The operative direction was to return the certified copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the service certificate to the learned standing counsel. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, and the substantive issues raised by the Revenue were not adjudicated.
What were the facts?
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur (the Appellant/Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, against an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur. The appeal was filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, asserting that substantial questions of law were involved. The assessee in this matter is M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Seepat Road, Bilaspur. The appeal was preferred by the Department of Revenue (Tax). The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the appeal by the Revenue.
What were the issues?
1. Whether substantial questions of law, as envisaged under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are involved in the appeal, requiring adjudication by the High Court? (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions are recorded in the judgment. Revenue: The Revenue contended that due to an oversight or inadvertent mistake, the substantial questions of law were not framed in a precise manner for effective adjudication. They sought permission to withdraw the present appeal to file a fresh one with corrected pleadings and prayers, including the substantial question of law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 of 2 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR TAXC No. 94 of 2019 • Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ----Appellant VERSUS • M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited Seepat Road, Bilaspur C.G. ----Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate, Ms. Naushina Ali, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kumrani, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice. 10/01/2020
This appeal has been preferred by the Department of Revenue (Tax) challenging the verdict passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Raipur stating that much substantial questions of law as envisaged under Section 260 A of Income Tax Act, 1961 are involved herein and hence, it require to be adjudicated by this Court.
When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned standing counsel submits that because of some oversight, some inadvertant mistake has crept in framing the substantial questions of law, which require to be suggested in a better and precise manner, so as to have effective adjudication by this Court. In the said circumstance, permission of this Court is sought to withdraw this appeal without prejudice to file fresh one raising the pleadings and prayers, including the substantial question of law involved in appropriate terms.
The aforesaid prayer is granted. Considering the fact that the appellant has approached this Court and filed the appeal within the time permitted under the statute, we find it appropriate to grant liberty to the appellant to file fresh
2 of 2 proceedings as corrected and modified to the requisite extent within a further period of six weeks from today.
Subject to the above, this appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn. Registry is directed to return the certified copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the service certificate to the learned standing counsel for proceeding with further steps. (P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge Pawan
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
