PRINCIPAL COMMR.OF INCOME TAX BHD. vs. M/S KISHAN MAL OIL COTTON & GINNING FACTORY
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival. The Court clarified that the withdrawal would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn, with the specified liberty and clarification.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (the revenue) against M/s Krishan Mal Oil Cotton & Ginning Factory (the assessee). The assessment years are not specified. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute is ₹21,34,550. The revenue's counsel stated that they had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect involved, citing Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the CBDT. The revenue also sought liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances warranted.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the revenue in light of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, considering the tax effect of ₹21,34,550? The revenue argued for withdrawal based on the aforementioned circular. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The issue is a procedural one concerning the revenue's right to withdraw an appeal based on administrative instructions.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-131-2017 Date of Decision: 7.8.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda ...Appellant. Versus M/s Krishan Mal Oil Cotton & Ginning Factory, Rampura Phul, Bathinda ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Denesh Goyal, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate and Mr. Sachin Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 21,34,550/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of Circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. However, he has prayed that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 7, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.08.08 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
