THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S INTERNATIONAL LEGGUARD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, the tax effect of ₹3,61,153/- being less than ₹50 lacs, the Revenue did not wish to press the appeal on merits. Consequently, the instant appeal was dismissed as not pressed. The Court, as prayed by the Revenue's counsel, granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was also kept open. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the threshold specified in CBDT circulars may be dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to seek revival.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar (Revenue) against M/s International Legguard Works (assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself, filed before the High Court. The tax effect involved in the case is stated to be ₹3,61,153/-. The procedural history is that the Revenue, through its counsel, stated it did not wish to press the appeal on merits due to the tax effect being less than ₹50 lacs, referencing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed on merits, given the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 3/2018? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: No specific contentions are recorded for the assessee in the judgment. The assessee's counsel was present but did not argue the merits. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its counsel, stated that the tax effect involved is ₹3,61,153/-. In view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which stipulates a monetary limit for filing appeals, the Revenue did not want to press the appeal on merits as the tax effect was below the threshold.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.116 of 2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2018 **** Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar
...Appellant
VS.
M/s International Legguard Works
... Respondent **** Coram : Hon’ble Mr.Justice Surya Kant
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sudip Ahluwalia **** Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the appellant
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent **** SURYA KANT J. (Oral)
(1) Learned counsel for Revenue states that the tax effect involved in this case is `3,61,153/- and in view of the recent Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, the tax effect being less than `50 lacs, he does not want to press this appeal on merits. (2) In view of the CBDT Circular, the instant appeal is dismissed as not pressed. As prayed for by learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal, if need be, in the changed circumstances. The question of law is also kept open.
(Surya Kant) Judge
03.10.2018 vishal shonkar (Sudip Ahluwalia) Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No 2. Whether reportable?
Yes/No V VISHAL 2018.10.06 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
