C I T vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE

PDF · subscribers
ITA/409/2007HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01083958200707 November 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty as prayed for by the appellant-revenue, allowing them to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The reasoning for the dismissal was solely based on the appellant-revenue's request to withdraw due to the low tax effect, as per the CBDT circulars. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous (C.M.) Application was also disposed of as the main case was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh (appellant-revenue) against M/s. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (respondent). The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The specific assessment year(s) are not mentioned in the judgment. The appeal challenges an order or action that is not detailed in this excerpt. The procedural history is limited to the present appeal being filed and its subsequent withdrawal.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal (High Court in this instance) had to decide whether to allow the withdrawal of the appeal. The appellant-revenue argued that the tax effect involved was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circulars No. 3 of 2018 and 17 of 2019, and therefore, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. They also requested liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances changed. The respondent-assessee did not present any arguments as 'None' appeared for them.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 409 of 2007 Date of decision : 07.11.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh ..... Appellant versus M/s. Smithkline Beecham Consumer Healthcare Ltd. ..... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ALKA SARIN *** Present : Ms.Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. None 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. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE ( ALKA SARIN ) JUDGE 07.11.2019 raman Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAMAN KUMAR 2019.11.08 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →