PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 LUDHIANA vs. M/S BBF INDUSTRIES LTD
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The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the Tribunal's order on merits. Furthermore, the court explicitly stated that the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. No specific finding on the merits of the original dispute was made.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (the revenue) against M/s BBF Industries Ltd. (formerly known as Bharat Box Factory Ltd.), Ludhiana (the assessee). The appeal was filed before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹34,14,470/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal in view of Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revenue is entitled to withdraw the appeal in light of CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, given the tax effect involved? 2. Whether the revenue should be granted liberty to revive the appeal if circumstances change? Contentions of the Appellant (Revenue): The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that due to the tax effect of ₹34,14,470/-, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018. They prayed for liberty to revive the appeal if any aspect of the matter survived. Contentions of the Respondent (Assessee): No specific contentions of the assessee are recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-560-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.8.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ...Appellant. Versus M/s BBF Industries Ltd.(formerly known as Bharat Box Factory Ltd.), Ludhiana ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Ms. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 34,14,470/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of Circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. However, he has prayed that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 16, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.08.17 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
