COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA vs. HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the appeal as 'not pressed'. The reasoning was based on the statement made by the Revenue's counsel that the Assessee had availed of the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act, leading to instructions not to pursue the appeal. The Court noted that the question of law raised in the appeal was left open. No specific finding was given on the merits of the appeal. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed, with the question of law remaining undecided.
What were the facts?
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh against an order concerning M/s Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited (the Assessee). The appeal was filed for the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The specific order or action under challenge and the authority that passed it are not detailed. The amount in dispute is also not stated. The procedural history is that the Revenue filed the appeal, and subsequently, the Assessee availed of the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act amnesty scheme.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be pursued by the Revenue given the Assessee's availing of the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act. (Question of fact/procedure) Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded as the Assessee did not make any submissions. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, stated that the Assessee had availed of the Vivad-se-Vishwas Act amnesty scheme after the appeal was filed. Based on this development, the counsel submitted that they had instructions not to pursue the appeal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-78-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision:29.07.2022 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula .......Appellant Versus M/s Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Limited ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. ***** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA J.(Oral) Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant makes a statement at the bar that after filing of the instant appeal, the Assessee- respondent has availed of amnesty scheme Vivad-se-Vishwas Act. In view of such circumstances/development counsel for the appellant submits that he has instructions not to pursue the instant appeal. Disposed of as not pressed. However, the question of law raised in the appeal is left open. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
JUDGE (PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE 29.07.2022 shweta
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No SHWETA 2022.08.01 18:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
