PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA vs. M/S HARYANA TOURISM CORPORATION LTD.,SCO 17-19 SECTOR 17-B,CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA/8/2018HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01119411201830 July 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE R.C. KATHURIA (RETD.),MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The court granted liberty to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal as prayed for. It was clarified that the withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue would not be considered an affirmation of the ITAT's order on merits. Furthermore, the legal issue claimed by the revenue was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. The court did not decide the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula (the revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The appeal, numbered ITA No. 8 of 2018, was decided on July 30, 2018. The respondent in the appeal was M/s Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. The tax effect involved in the appeal was ₹ 20,42,080/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on a circular issued by the CBDT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the revenue should be dismissed as withdrawn, considering the tax effect and the CBDT circular. (Question of law) The revenue argued that due to the tax effect being ₹ 20,42,080/-, which falls within the monetary limits prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 03/2018 dated July 11, 2018, they had instructions to withdraw the appeal. They also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something further survived. The respondent did not record any arguments.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 8 of 2018 (O&M) Decided on : 30.07.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula . . . Appellant(s) Versus M/s Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant(s). Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate for the respondent(s). **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 20,42,080/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of the circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the C.B.D.T., New Delhi. However, he prayed that liberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal in case something survives therein. 2. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. It is, however, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shall not be taken to be affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Further, the legal issue as claimed by the revenue is being left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE July 30, 2018 J.Ram (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No Jawala Ram 2018.08.04 13:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →