C I T vs. M/S MAJESTIC AUTO LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/608/2008HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01080615200829 October 2019Bench: MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI,MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the appellant-revenue's submission that the tax effect involved was less than the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) circulars. The revenue explicitly stated they had instructions to withdraw the appeal on this ground. The Tribunal granted the liberty prayed for by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal, in case something survives therein. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. No specific issues on merits were decided, and any pending applications were also disposed of as a consequence of the main appeal being dismissed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against M/s. Majestic Auto Limited (respondent-assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), though the specific order or action is not detailed. The procedural history is limited to the revenue's decision to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant-revenue in light of CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018 and subsequent amendments, due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limit? (Question of procedure/administrative policy) The appellant-revenue argued that due to the tax effect being less than the monetary limit prescribed in CBDT Circular No.3 of 2018, dated 11.07.2018, as amended by 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, they have instructions to withdraw the present appeal. They prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein. The respondent-assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

759 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.608 of 2008 Date of decision : 29.10.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ...... Appellant versus M/s. Majestic Auto Limited, C-48, Focal Point, Ludhiana. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE ALKA SARIN *** Present : Mr.Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Akhilesh Barak, Advocate & Mr.Shantanu Bansal, 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. Application, if any, also stands disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE (ALKA SARIN) JUDGE 29.10.2019 raman Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAMAN KUMAR 2019.10.31 09:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →