PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PUGMARK INTERWEB PVT 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the revenue liberty to file an application for revival as prayed. 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 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 with liberty granted to the revenue.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh (appellant-revenue) against M/s Pugmark Interweb Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh (respondent-assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified in the provided text. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal is ₹26.03 lakhs. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 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.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue, with liberty to revive. The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being ₹26.03 lakhs, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. The revenue further requested 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-299-2016 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11.9.2018 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Chandigarh ...Appellant. Versus M/s Pugmark Interweb Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh ...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. Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 26.03 lakhs, 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 September 11, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.09.12 10:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
