THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BATHINDA vs. M/S HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD

PDF · subscribers
ITA/400/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01092960201927 February 2020Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the revenue the liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal, as prayed for by their counsel. The reasoning for dismissal was solely based on the revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals, as per the CBDT circulars. The court did not delve into the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the revenue when the tax effect falls below the stipulated monetary limits, with potential for revival under specific conditions. Any pending applications related to the main case were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda (the revenue) against M/s HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd., Bathinda (the assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order or action from an unspecified authority. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history is that the revenue's counsel, citing CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and subsequent amendments, sought to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit. The revenue also requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances changed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn based on the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018 and subsequent amendments. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The revenue argued that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, as amended by Circular No. 17 of 2019 and Letter No. F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. Consequently, the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal, requesting liberty to revive it if circumstances warranted.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

107-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.400 of 2019 Date of Decision: 27.02.2020 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda Appellant Versus M/s HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd., Bathinda Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Varun Issar, Jr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. **** 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. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

[AJAY TEWARI] JUDGE [AVNEESH JHINGAN] JUDGE February 27, 2020

pankaj baweja 1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes / No 2. Whether reportable : Yes / No PANKAJ BAWEJA 2020.03.02 13:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →