PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL),GURGAON vs. M/S HEERA MOTI HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS,PAN;AAACH3744D
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 was given on the merits of the case.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon (the revenue) against M/s Heera Moti Healthcare Products, Chandigarh (the assessee). The appeal challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹4,06,674. The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had issued Circular No. 03/2018 on 11th July 2018, which provided guidelines for withdrawal of appeals based on tax effect.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revenue should be permitted to withdraw the appeal based on the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018? The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. They also prayed for liberty to revive the appeal if something survived. The assessee's arguments 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-145-2017 Date of Decision: 18.9.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Gurgaon ...Appellant. Versus M/s Heera Moti Healthcare Products, Chandigarh ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 4,06,674/-, 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 September 18, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.09.25 15:14 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
