COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II CHANDIGARH vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD PATIALA ROAD NABHA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/114/2014HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109236201414 December 2023Bench: MR. JUSTICE GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the dispute in the present appeal had been settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. As a result, the Department confirmed it would not be pursuing the appeal. The court, therefore, disposed of the appeal as 'not pressed' based on the statements made by the counsel for both parties. No decision was made on the merits of any underlying tax dispute. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh (appellant/revenue) against M/s Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (respondent/assessee). The case was listed for hearing on 12.03.2024. The judgment does not specify the assessment year(s) or the specific order or action under challenge, nor does it mention any amount in dispute. The procedural history is limited to the fact that the appeal was listed for hearing.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal did not have to decide any substantive issues. The primary matter before the court was the procedural disposition of the appeal. The parties agreed that the dispute had been settled under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. Consequently, the Department stated it would not be pursuing the appeal. No arguments were presented by either side on the merits of the original dispute.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:161584 -DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-114-2014 (O&M)

Decided on : 14.12.2023

Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh

……Appellant(s)

Versus M/s Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. ……Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA

HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI

Present:- Ms.Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr.Standing Counsel, for the appellant(s).

Mr.Vishal Gupta, Advocate

Mr.Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the respondent(s).

****

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) 1.

It is agreed that the dispute in the present appeal already stands settled under the ‘Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme’ and therefore, the Department would not be pursuing the said appeal. 2.

Accordingly, date of hearing of the case from 12.03.2024 is preponed to today. The same is disposed of as not pressed, as per the statement made by counsel for the parties.

(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)

JUDGE

(LAPITA BANERJI) 14.12.2023

JUDGE sailesh

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes

Whether Reportable :

NAVEEN NAGPAL 2023.12.19 11:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →