PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA POWER GENERATION CORPORATION LTD., SECTOR-6, PANCHKULA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/265/2017HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01117464201725 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as prayed for by the revenue. The court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be construed as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The court did not decide the substantive merits of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (appellant-revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The respondent was M/s Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹ 47,24,204/-. The appeal was decided on July 25, 2018.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue, considering the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being ₹ 47,24,204/-, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated July 11, 2018. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. No arguments were recorded for the respondent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 265 of 2017 Decided on : 25.07.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). None for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 47,24,204/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he 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 July 25, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.07.31 11:10 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →