THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6 vs. MSD PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/897/2018HC DelhiDLHC01196691201820 August 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court, in its order dated August 20, 2018, decided not to entertain the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court cited its own decision in Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Am. (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Delhi) as a basis for not entertaining the appeal. Furthermore, the Court observed that the appeal appeared 'misconceived'. The impugned order dated March 6, 2018, was a first order granting stay and not an order continuing a stay beyond 360 days. The High Court dismissed the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal itself was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-6 (Revenue) filed an appeal against an order dated March 6, 2018, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). This order granted a stay to the respondent-assessee, MSB Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT had previously decided cross-appeals filed by the Revenue and the assessee on November 22, 2016. Both parties challenged this order before the Delhi High Court, which, by an order dated July 19, 2017, restored the matter to the ITAT for a fresh decision. Following the remand, the assessee filed an application for stay, which resulted in the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the present appeal filed by the Revenue against the ITAT's order dated March 6, 2018, which granted a stay to the assessee. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not explicitly present arguments in the provided text. The High Court's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on its own inclination and a cited precedent. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's contention is implicit in filing the appeal, seeking to challenge the stay order granted by the ITAT. The High Court noted that the appeal appeared 'misconceived'. The Revenue relied on the fact that the ITAT's order was a first order and not one continuing a stay beyond 360 days, suggesting it might be appealable.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$-29 & 40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA Nos. 894/2018 &jS^7/2018 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6 Appellant Through Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate. versus MSB PHARMACEUTICALS PVT. LTD Respondent Through Mr. Harpreet Singh Ajmani, Advocate for Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR ORDER % 20.08.2018 We are not inclined to entertain the present appeal in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Am. (2015) 376 ITR 87 (Delhi). Even otherwise, the appeal appears to be misconceived. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had decided cross appeals preferred by the Revenue and the assessee vide order dated 22"'' November, 2016, which order was challenged both by the Revenue and the respondent in ITA Nos.524/2017 and 532/2017, respectively. The High Court vide order dated 19 July, 2017 had restored the matter to the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeals afresh. On the matter being remanded, the respondent-assessee had th filed an application for stay. The impugned order dated 6 March, 2018 grants stay. The impugned order is a first order and not an order Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:09.10.2024 15:41 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified

continuing the stay beyond 360 days. The appeal is dismissed. AUGUST 20, 2018 NA SANJIVKHANNA, J. CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →