PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 vs. LANDMARK AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/432/2015HC GujaratGJHC24047844201527 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 the permission as prayed for by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also granted the liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal in case any discrepancy comes to notice at a later stage, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The core of the decision was to allow the withdrawal based on the appellant's stated reasons concerning the tax effect and CBDT guidelines, without delving into the merits of the original appeal. No specific issue was decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 2, filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The appeal was against an order or action related to Landmark Automobiles Pvt Ltd. The appeal was filed for assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant submitted a note along with a communication from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial) instructing withdrawal of the appeal. The reason for withdrawal was that the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- and the case did not fall under exceptional clauses as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. The appellant reserved the right to revive the appeal if any discrepancy was discovered later.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide whether to grant permission to withdraw the appeal. The appellant argued that the appeal should be withdrawn because the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and the case did not fall within the exceptional categories for pursuing appeals. The appellant also sought liberty to revive the appeal in case of future discrepancies. The respondent (Landmark Automobiles Pvt Ltd) did not record any arguments in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/432/2015 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 432 of 2015 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 Versus LANDMARK AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR. HARDIK V VORA(7123) 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) Vijay

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →