COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VARDHMAN SPINNING AND GENERAL MILLS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the submission by the appellant-revenue that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limits for filing appeals, as per the CBDT circulars. The Court granted the liberty sought by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, should any aspect of the matter survive. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty granted. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous (C.M.) applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main case being dismissed.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd. (respondent-assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified in the provided text. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific order or action under challenge is not detailed. The amount in dispute is also not stated. The procedural history is limited to the present appeal being filed before the High Court.
What were the issues?
The primary issue before the High Court was whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed. The revenue, through its learned counsel, stated that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by Circular No. 3 of 2018 and Circular No. 17 of 2019, read with Letter No. F.No.279/Misc/M-93/2018-ITJ dated 20.08.2019. Consequently, the revenue had instructions to withdraw the appeal. The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survived therein. The assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 743 ITA No.565 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 06.09.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ...... Appellant versus Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL Present : Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Junior Standing counsel for the appellant. Mr. M.S.Kanda, Advocate 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., if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE 06.09.2019 anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No Anuradha 2019.09.11 15:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
