COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. JAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/1434/2011HC GujaratGJHC24045485201103 December 2018Author: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER1 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court granted the permission as prayed for by the Revenue. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted the liberty sought by the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after the withdrawal of the appeal, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The specific finding on any substantive issue of income tax law is not applicable as the appeal was withdrawn before any adjudication on merits. The ratio decidendi for this order is that the court will permit withdrawal of an appeal by the revenue if the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit and the conditions of the relevant CBDT circular are met, with the possibility of revival if errors are found.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns a Tax Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II against Jay Chemical Industries Ltd. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, sought to withdraw the appeal. This request was based on a communication from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial) dated 29.10.2018, citing that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, and the case did not fall under any exceptional clauses. The Revenue also sought liberty to revive the appeal if any discrepancy was discovered later.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeal on the grounds of tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No.3/2018, with liberty to revive. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee. The assessee's representative, Mr. Tej Shah, was present, but no arguments were presented on their behalf. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel Ms. Mauna Bhatt, submitted a note and a communication from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial). The Revenue argued that the appeal should be withdrawn because the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/- as per CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, and the case did not fall into any exceptional categories. The Revenue also requested liberty to revive the appeal if any discrepancies were noted later, acknowledging the possibility of human error.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

C/TAXAP/1434/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1434 of 2011 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Versus JAY CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR TEJ SHAH(5743) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER Date : 03/12/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

Ms. Mauna Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant has submitted a note together with a communication dated 29.10.2018 of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial), for Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad, instructing her to withdraw the appeal as the tax effect is below the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/- and the case does not fall in the exceptional clauses as per the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, reserving a right to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage after withdrawal of the appeal as human error cannot be ruled out. She, accordingly, seeks permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty as aforesaid.

Permission as prayed for is granted. The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (A. P. THAKER, J) Vijay

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →