CIT vs. M/S HINDUSTAN PLASTICS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting the liberty prayed for by the revenue to file an application for revival of the appeal. The Court 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, as claimed by the revenue, was left open to be adjudicated in an appropriate case. Applications filed in the appeal were also dismissed as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana (appellant-revenue) against M/s Hindustan Plastics, Dhuri (respondent-assessee). The assessment years are not specified. The appeal challenges an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The tax effect involved in the appeal is ₹36,60,980/-. The revenue sought to withdraw the appeal based on Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). The revenue also prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if something survives therein.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed as withdrawn by the revenue in view of the tax effect and the CBDT circular. The appellant-revenue argued that it had instructions to withdraw the present appeal due to the tax effect being ₹36,60,980/-, citing Circular No. 03/2018 dated 11th July 2018. The revenue prayed for liberty to file an application for revival of the appeal if circumstances warranted. The respondent-assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-848-2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.8.2018 The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Ludhiana ...Appellant. Versus M/s Hindustan Plastics, Dhuri ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. PRESENT: Mr. Z.S. Klar, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. Mr. K.L. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue states that since the tax effect involved is ` 36,60,980/-, he has instructions to withdraw the present appeal in view of Circular No.03/2018, dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. However, he has 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. 3. Applications are also dismissed as withdrawn. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 27, 2018 (AVNEESH JHINGAN) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2018.08.28 17:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
