COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VARDHMAN HOLDINGS LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals, as per the relevant CBDT circulars. The court granted the liberty sought by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should any aspect of the case survive. The main case being dismissed, any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against Vardhman Holdings Ltd. (respondent). The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The appeal challenges an order or action that is not detailed. The procedural history is that the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars. The High Court was asked to grant liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances changed.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn given the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit for appeals by the revenue? The appellant-revenue argued that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019 and a subsequent letter. Therefore, they have instructions to withdraw the appeal. They also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. The respondent's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 743-A ITA No.319 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.09.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ...... Appellant
versus Vardhman Holdings Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing counsel for the appellant. Mr. M.S.Kanda, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is less than the monetary limit as prescribed in Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, further amended vide Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 read with Letter No.F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the appellant-revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 3. Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending C.M., if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 06.09.2019 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Anuradha 2019.09.11 15:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
