GEE CITY BUILDERS P. LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, LUDHIANA AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/428/2019HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01104893201911 March 2022Bench: MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the appellant's counsel stated that the matter had been settled with the respondent authorities and that the appellant no longer wished to pursue the appeal. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal as infructuous. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be disposed of as infructuous if the appellant withdraws it due to settlement of the matter with the revenue authorities. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Gee City Builders P. Ltd., filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The appeal was against the order or action of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ludhiana and another. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the judgment. The procedural history leading to this appeal is also not detailed.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the appeal filed by Gee City Builders P. Ltd. against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ludhiana and another. The judgment does not explicitly state the specific questions of law or fact that the Tribunal had to decide. The appellant's counsel stated that the matter has been settled with the respondent authorities and therefore, they do not wish to pursue the appeal. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

114-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

ITA-428-2019

Date of decision : 11.03.2022 Gee City Builders P. Ltd.

.....Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Ludhiana and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing counsel with Mr. Jaswinder Singh Sandhu, Junior Standing counsel for the respondents. AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH

, J. (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the matter has been settled by the appellant with the respondents authorities and therefore, he does not want to pursue the present appeal. In the light of the above, the present appeal is disposed of as infructuous.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

JUDGE March 11th, 2022 (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) ps-I

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No POOJA SHARMA 2022.03.12 11:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →