PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA vs. M/S SYMBIOSIS PHARMACEUTICALS PVT .LTD.,37/1 KAMBOJ COLONY, NEAR RAVI METAL, JAGADHRI
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was 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 left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The court did not decide the merits of the case.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (the revenue) against M/s Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Jagadhri (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The amount in dispute, referred to as the tax effect, is ₹37,72,156/-. The procedural history is that the revenue's counsel, citing CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July 2018, sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revenue is 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 of ₹37,72,156/-, they have instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with Circular No. 03/2018 issued by the CBDT. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-151-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.9.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula ...Appellant. Versus M/s Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Jagadhri ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 37,72,156/-, 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 25, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.09.27 16:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Shivaraj M S vs. The Union Of INDIAKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
