COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. M/S HARSHA ENGINEERING PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1004/2011HC GujaratGJHC24045284201127 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 the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and that the case did not qualify for any exceptions. The Court also granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the appeal at a later stage in case any discrepancy was found due to human error. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II (the Revenue) filed an appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad against an order concerning M/s Harsha Engineering Pvt Ltd (the assessee). The appeal was filed for the assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, submitted a note along with a communication from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial). This communication instructed the withdrawal of the appeal because the tax effect was below the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/-, and the case did not fall under any exceptional clauses as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018. The Revenue also reserved the right to revive the appeal if any discrepancy was discovered later due to human error.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be permitted to be withdrawn by the Revenue on the grounds of tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, and the case not falling under any exceptional clauses. The Revenue argued that the appeal should be withdrawn as per the instructions received from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial), citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. The Revenue contended that the tax effect in this case was below Rs. 50,00,000/- and no exceptional circumstances applied. The Revenue also sought liberty to revive the appeal if any human error was later discovered. The Assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/1004/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1004 of 2011 ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Versus M/S HARSHA ENGINEERING PVT LTD ================================================================ Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR TUSHAR P HEMANI(2790) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) 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 →