PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE LUDHIANA vs. M/S NARULA OIL AND FATS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/17/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01025642202401 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, allowed the revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. The reasoning provided is that the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of in light of the withdrawal of the main appeal. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the substantive tax dispute, if any existed, as the appeal was withdrawn procedurally. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be withdrawn by the revenue if it is of low tax effect, leading to its dismissal as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana (the revenue) against M/s Narula Oil and Fats Pvt. Ltd. (the assessee). The specific assessment year(s) are not mentioned in the provided text. The appeal challenges an order or action, but the nature of that order or action and the authority that passed it are not detailed. The amount in dispute is also not stated. The procedural history indicates that the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be permitted to be withdrawn on the ground of low tax effect, and consequently, whether any pending miscellaneous applications should also be disposed of. (Question of procedure/merits turning on the discretion of the court and administrative instructions regarding low tax effect). Contentions: Assessee: No arguments are recorded for the assessee in the provided text. Revenue: The revenue, through its learned counsel, sought to withdraw the appeal on account of low tax effect. They relied on the principle that appeals with a low tax effect may be withdrawn to conserve judicial and administrative resources.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH

Sr. No. 273 (1) Principal Commiss M/s Narula Oil and

CORAM : HON

HON

Present : Mr. V

Ms. P

Ms. N for th

DEEPAK SIBAL, 1. Learn appeal on account 2. Dism 3. Pendi

01.09.2026 shamsher

H COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYA

sioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana Versus d Fats Pvt. Ltd. N'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK S N'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BI Varun Issar, Senior Standing Cou Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing C Nikita Garg, Junior Standing Cou he appellant-revenue. * * * * * J. (Oral) ned counsel for the appellant-re t of low tax effect. missed as withdrawn. ing miscellaneous application(s)

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No

ANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-17-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 01.09.2026

.…. Appellant

..... Respondent IBAL INDLISH unsel Counsel unsel evenue seeks to withdraw this , if any, also stand disposed of.

[DEEPAK SIBAL]

JUDGE [SUNISH BINDLISH] JUDGE o o SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.02 15:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →