COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX II CHD vs. M/S GLAXO SMITHKLINE CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/301/2014HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109444201420 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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for.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 Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh (appellant-revenue) against M/s Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd., Nabha (respondent-assessee). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹ 9,60,256/-. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn in view of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, due to the tax effect involved? The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, they had instructions to withdraw the present appeal. They also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-301-2014 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 ` 9,60,256/-, 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 Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.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 →