COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. G M M P FAULDER LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1094/2011HC GujaratGJHC24045345201127 November 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 permission to withdraw the appeal as prayed for by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The decision to withdraw was based on the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which sets monetary limits for filing appeals, and the fact that the tax effect in this particular case fell below the prescribed threshold. No decision on the merits of the case was made.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II against G M M P Faulder Ltd. The appeal was filed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted a note along with a communication from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial). This communication instructed the withdrawal of the appeal due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-. The case did not fall under the exceptional clauses of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. A right to revive the appeal was reserved in case of any discrepancy noticed later.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn by the Revenue based on the tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee. The appeal is being withdrawn by the Revenue. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, sought to withdraw the appeal. The grounds for withdrawal were that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the case did not fall within the exceptional clauses of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. The Revenue also sought to reserve a right to revive the appeal if any discrepancy was discovered later, acknowledging the possibility of human error.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/1094/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1094 of 2011 ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Versus G M M P FAULDER LTD ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER Date : 27/11/2018

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

1.

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.

2.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →