M/S PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH &

PDF · subscribers
ITA/166/2003HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01032570200314 May 2024Bench: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was not possible to decide the case on merits due to the persistent non-appearance of the appellant and their counsel. The Court noted that the appellant's counsel had pleaded no instructions on 26.08.2022, and despite notices, the appellant had failed to appear on 06.01.2023, 20.11.2023, and the current date. The Court concluded that the appellant was not interested in pursuing the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. No decision was made on the substantive merits of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by M/s Pepsu Road Transport Corpn., Patiala (the appellant) against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and another (the respondents). The appeal was listed for hearing on multiple dates, including 26.08.2022, 06.01.2023, 20.11.2023, and the present date of decision, 14.05.2024. On 26.08.2022, the appellant's counsel pleaded no instructions. Despite notices issued to the appellant, no one appeared on their behalf on subsequent dates. The case was called twice on the present date, but there was still no appearance. The Court noted that the appellant appeared to be uninterested in pursuing the case.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide whether to proceed with the appeal. The appellant's counsel had pleaded no instructions on a previous date, and the appellant had failed to appear on multiple subsequent hearing dates, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the appeal. The revenue's contentions are not recorded as the matter was dismissed for non-prosecution before any substantive arguments could be made. The appellant's contentions are also not recorded for the same reason. The core issue revolved around the appellant's failure to prosecute the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-166-2003 (O&M) Date of decision:- 14.05.2024 M/s Pepsu Road Transport Corpn. Patiala

....Appellant vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh and anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: None. *** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. On 26.08.2022, learned counsel for the appellant pleaded no instructions. Thereafter, notices were issued to the appellant as per directions of this Court on 26.08.2022 but no one appeared on behalf of the appellant on 06.01.2023 and 20.11.2023 or even thereafter. 2. Today also, the case called twice but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant. It seems that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the case. 3. In these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to decide the case on merits. 4. Dismissed for non-prosecution. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE 14.05.2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) G Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2024.05.16 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →