THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3 LUDHIANA vs. M/S TRIDENT ALCO-CHEM LTD LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/410/2016HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01110623201626 September 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT,MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect of ₹30,91,102/- was below the threshold of ₹50 lacs stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Consequently, the Revenue did not want to pursue the appeal on its merits. The Court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed and kept the question of law open. No specific finding was given on the merits of the original dispute.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana (Revenue) against M/s Trident Alco-Chem Ltd., Ludhiana (assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The appeal challenges an order or action, the nature of which is not detailed. The tax effect involved in the case is stated to be ₹30,91,102/-. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the appeal by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed in light of the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. (Question of law) Contentions: Assessee: No specific arguments are recorded for the assessee. Revenue: The learned counsel for the Revenue stated that the tax effect is ₹30,91,102/-, which is less than ₹50 lacs. In view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the Revenue does not wish to press the appeal on merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.410 of 2016 Date of Decision: 26.09.2018 **** The Pre. Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana ..... Appellant Versus M/s Trident Alco-Chem Ltd., Ludhiana

..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Arun Biriwal, Advocate and Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate, for the respondent. SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1) Learned counsel for Revenue states that the tax effect involved in this case is `30,91,102/- and in view of the recent Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, the tax effect being less than `50 lacs, he does not want to press this appeal on merits. (2) In view of the CBDT Circular, the instant appeal is dismissed as not pressed. As prayed for by learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal, if need be, in the changed circumstances. The question of law is also kept open.

(SURYA KANT)

JUDGE 26.09.2018

(SUDIP AHLUWALIA) Bhumika JUDGE 1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes 2. Whether reportable: No Bhumika Bhati 2018.09.28 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →