COMMISSIONER OF I.T.(C) LDH. vs. M\S MAJESTIC AUTO LTD. LDH.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/74/2001HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042120200126 September 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT,MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The Revenue's counsel informed the Court that the tax effect involved was ₹7,93,010/-, which is below the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. Consequently, the Revenue did not wish to pursue the appeal on its merits. The Court, in view of the CBDT Circular, allowed the Revenue's request to dismiss the appeal as not pressed. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed, and the question of law was expressly kept open.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana (Revenue) against M/s Majestic Auto Ltd., Ludhiana (Assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The order or action under challenge is the Revenue's appeal before the High Court. The tax effect involved in the case is stated to be ₹7,93,010/-. The procedural history is that the Revenue has filed this appeal before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as not pressed in light of the tax effect and CBDT Circular No. 3/2018? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The Revenue's counsel stated that the tax effect is ₹7,93,010/-, which is less than ₹50 lacs. Therefore, in view of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, the Revenue does not wish to press the appeal on merits. Revenue's Contention: Not applicable as the Revenue is the appellant and is withdrawing the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.74 of 2001 Date of Decision: 26.09.2018 **** Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Ludhiana ..... Appellant Versus M/s Majestic Auto Ltd., Ludhiana

..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1) Learned counsel for Revenue states that the tax effect involved in this case is `7,93,010/- and in view of the recent Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, the tax effect being less than `50 lacs, he does not want to press this appeal on merits. (2) In view of the CBDT Circular, the instant appeal is dismissed as not pressed. As prayed for by learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal, if need be, in the changed circumstances. The question of law is also kept open.

(SURYA KANT)

JUDGE 26.09.2018

(SUDIP AHLUWALIA) Bhumika JUDGE 1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes 2. Whether reportable: No Bhumika Bhati 2018.09.28 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →