CIT-III LUDHIANA vs. M/S VEE KAY CONCAST(P) LUDHIANA
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue, represented by its counsel, informed the Court that it had instructions to withdraw the appeal due to the tax effect being below the prescribed monetary limits as per the relevant CBDT Circulars and a subsequent letter. The revenue specifically prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted it. The Court granted this liberty. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn with the liberty granted. Any pending Civil Miscellaneous (C.M.) Application was 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-III, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against M/s. Vee Kay Concast (P) Limited, Ludhiana (respondent-assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. 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 filing of the present appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be withdrawn based on the monetary limits prescribed in CBDT Circulars. The appellant-revenue, through its counsel, stated that the tax effect involved in the appeal is below the monetary limit prescribed by 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. Consequently, the revenue sought to withdraw the appeal. The respondent-assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
787 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.683 of 2009 Date of decision : 29.10.2019 Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Ludhiana ...... Appellant versus M/s. Vee Kay Concast (P) Limited, 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 →- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
