COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX II CHD vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 construed as an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was explicitly left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn with liberty granted.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh (revenue) against M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd., Nabha (assessee). The appeal challenged an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹1305/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on Circular No. 03/2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue, and if so, whether liberty should be granted to the revenue to revive the appeal. The revenue argued that due to the low tax effect of ₹1305/-, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. They prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted. The assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-299-2014 Date of Decision: 20.7.2018 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh ...Appellant. Versus M/s Glaxo Smithkline consumer Healthcare Ltd., Nabha ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Vishal Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 1305/-, she 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, she 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 Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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 July 20, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.24 15:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
