COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JAY ESS PEE
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted the liberty sought by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. However, it was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate future case. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute were made as the appeal was withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II (the revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal was filed against M/s Jay Ess Pee, Samipur, Jalandhar (the assessee). The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹38,09,400. The appeal was filed for assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, and requested liberty to revive the appeal if necessary.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal based on CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, given the tax effect involved. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, represented by learned counsel, stated that due to the tax effect of ₹38,09,400, it had instructions to withdraw the appeal in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal should any aspect survive.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-563-2008 Date of Decision: 17.7.2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II, Jalandhar ...Appellant. Versus M/s Jay Ess Pee, Samipur, Jalandhar ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Vivek Sethi, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 38,09,400/-, 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 July 17, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2018.07.19 11:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
