COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S CHEEMA SPINTEX LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/133/2012HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01099198201217 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding on the merits of the case was made as the appeal was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh (appellant-revenue) against M/s Cheema Spintex Ltd., Chandigarh (respondent-assessee). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹27.74 lakhs. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The judgment was delivered on July 17, 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the revenue in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, given the tax effect involved? The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that due to the tax effect of ₹27.74 lakhs, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if anything survived therein. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-133-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.7.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh ...Appellant. Versus M/s Cheema Spintex Ltd., Chandigarh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. 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 ` 27.74 lakhs, she 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, she 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 July 17, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.19 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →