GEE CITY BUILDERS P. LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER

PDF · subscribers
ITA/68/2020HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01011073202025 May 2022Bench: MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA,MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the appellant had settled the matter with the respondent-authorities and consequently did not wish to pursue the appeal, the appeal could be disposed of on this basis. The court accepted the statement made by the appellant's counsel. There was no decision on the merits of the original dispute. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were left undecided, as the appeal itself was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by Gee City Builders P. Ltd. (the appellant) against the Commissioner of Income Tax and another (the respondents). The assessment years are not specified in the judgment. The order or action under challenge is not detailed, but it is an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The procedural history indicates that an advance copy of the appeal paper-book was served upon the respondents, and counsel for both parties were present. The core of the matter is that the appellant and the respondent-authorities have settled the dispute.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal (High Court) did not have to decide any substantive issues of law or fact. The primary issue was whether the appeal could be disposed of based on a settlement between the parties. The appellant's contention, as presented by their counsel, was that the matter had been settled with the respondent-authorities and therefore, they did not wish to pursue the appeal. The respondents, represented by their counsel, acknowledged this settlement. No specific legal provisions were debated as the appeal was withdrawn.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-68-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:25.05.2022 Gee City Builders P. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus Commissioner of Income Tax and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present:- Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel for respondents- Income Tax Deptt. ***** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA J.(Oral) Since an advance copy of the appeal paper-book has already been served upon the respondents, Mr. Rajesh Katoch, learned Senior Standing Counsel has entered appearance on behalf of respondents. Counsel for the parties are ad idem that the matter has since been settled by the appellant with the respondent-authorities. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate, for the appellant accordingly makes a statement that he does not wish to pursue the appeal. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)

JUDGE (PANKAJ JAIN)

JUDGE 25.05.2022 shweta

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SHWETA 2022.05.26 10:47 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →