THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. HARSHA ENGINEERS LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/28/2016HC GujaratGJHC24051587201627 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 appellant to withdraw the appeal. The Court held that the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. The reasoning is based on the appellant's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 and did not fall under any exceptional clauses. The Court also granted liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal at a later stage if any discrepancy comes to notice, acknowledging the possibility of human error. The ratio decidendi is that appeals below a certain monetary threshold, as per CBDT circulars, can be withdrawn by the revenue, with a possibility of revival under specific circumstances. No specific issue was decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 against Harsha Engineers Ltd. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself, filed before the High Court of Gujarat. The procedural history involves the appellant's counsel submitting a note and 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/- as per CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, and the case did not fall under any exceptional clauses. The appellant sought permission to withdraw the appeal, reserving a right to revive it if any discrepancy was discovered later.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant. This question arises from the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The appellant's contention, as presented by their counsel, is that the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, and the case does not meet the criteria for exceptions. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable based on the monetary threshold. The revenue (appellant) relies on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The respondent (assessee) has not recorded any contentions in this regard.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/28/2016 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 28 of 2016 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Versus HARSHA ENGINEERS 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) Vijay

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →