THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 vs. KOMAL AMIN EXPORTS (P) LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/753/2015HC GujaratGJHC24047977201527 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 of Gujarat granted permission to withdraw the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court also granted the appellant liberty to revive the appeal at a later stage if any discrepancy came to notice, acknowledging that human error cannot be ruled out. The decision to withdraw was based on the instruction from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial) due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit stipulated in CBDT Circular No.3/2018 and the case not falling under any exceptional clauses. No finding was made on the merits of the original appeal.

What were the facts?

The appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The appeal was against an order concerning the respondent, Komal Amin Exports (P) Ltd. The appeal was filed for an assessment year not specified in the judgment. The appellant's counsel submitted a note along with a communication from the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Judicial) instructing the 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 the exceptional clauses of 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?

1. Whether the appeal should be withdrawn as per the instructions of the CBDT Circular No.3/2018 due to the tax effect being below the monetary limit. The assessee (Revenue) argued that the appeal should be withdrawn as per the CBDT Circular No.3/2018, citing that the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/- and the case did not meet any of the exceptional criteria for pursuing appeals beyond this limit. The assessee also sought liberty to revive the appeal if any discrepancy was later discovered, acknowledging the possibility of human error. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent (assessee).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/753/2015 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 753 of 2015 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 Versus KOMAL AMIN EXPORTS (P) LTD., ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 RULE UNSERVED(68) 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 →