PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 LUDHIANA vs. M/S AVON ISPAT & POWERS LTD LUDHIANA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The specific findings on the merits of the case or the ITAT's order were not addressed as the appeal was withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, Ludhiana (the revenue) against M/s Avon Ispat & Power Ltd. (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal is stated to be less than ₹50 lacs. The procedural history is that the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue based on CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11.07.2018, due to the tax effect being less than ₹50 lacs? Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, stated that due to the tax effect being less than ₹50 lacs, it had instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of Circular No. 03/2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.261 of 2016 (O&M) Date of Decision :09.09.2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-2, Ludhiana ......Appellant Versus M/s Avon Ispat & Power Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI, JUDGE Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Chetan Sood, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the respondent. KRISHNA MURARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
(Oral)
: Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is less than ` 50 lacs, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11.07.2018 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. (KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 09.09.2019
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MANOJ KUMAR 2019.09.10 15:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity 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
