CIT, KARNAL vs. M/S RAJ FOODS VILLKHARINDWA BABAIN ROAD KKR.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty as prayed for by the revenue. The Court clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the Court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No specific findings were made on the substantive merits of the case, and the operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal with liberty to revive.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal (appellant-revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed concerning assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute was ₹32,74,000. The procedural history involves the revenue filing the present appeal and applications before the High Court.
What were the issues?
The primary issue before the High Court was whether to entertain the appeal filed by the revenue. The revenue, through its counsel, stated that it had instructions to withdraw the present appeal and associated applications. This withdrawal was based on Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The revenue requested liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if any aspect of it survived. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondent-assessee, M/s Raj Foods, Shahbad (M), Kurukshetra, regarding the withdrawal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-31-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 6.8.2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ...Appellant. Versus M/s Raj Foods, Shahbad (M), Kurukshetra ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. B.M. Monga, Advocate and Mr. Rohit Kaura, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 32,74,000/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal as well as the applications in view of Circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 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. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 6, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.08.08 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
