THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, vs. SUGAMCHAND CHIMANLAL SHAH

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1195/2010HC GujaratGJHC24046164201017 September 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court granted permission to the Revenue to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning was based on the department's instruction to withdraw the appeals because the tax effect involved was below the minimum threshold limit stipulated by the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018. This circular enables the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the Tax Appeals were disposed of as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the merits of any tax-related issues, as the appeals were withdrawn on procedural grounds related to the monetary limit for appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Income Tax Officer against Kansai Texo Tube Private Limited. A multitude of Tax Appeals, listed by their respective numbers, were consolidated for a common oral order. The appeals were before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The procedural history indicates that these appeals were presented for adjudication by the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals are maintainable before the High Court given the tax effect involved? The Revenue (Income Tax Officer) sought permission to withdraw these appeals. The reason cited for withdrawal was that the tax effect in these appeals was below the minimum threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT in its circular dated 11.07.2018, which governs the department's ability to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. The Assessee (Kansai Texo Tube Private Limited) was the respondent in these appeals. No specific arguments were recorded for the assessee as the Revenue sought withdrawal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/70/2008 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 70 of 2008 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 101 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1029 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1167 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1169 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1195 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1196 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1197 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1374 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1436 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1491 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1534 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1558 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1598 of 2008 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1599 of 2008 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 16 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1819 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1866 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1927 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2028 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2029 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2030 of 2010 Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/70/2008 ORDER With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 218 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2348 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 242 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 431 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 444 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 541 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 613 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 614 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 732 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 845 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 863 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 871 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 873 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 944 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 988 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 989 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 990 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 991 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 992 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 993 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 994 of 2011 ========================================================== THE INCOME TAX OFFICER Versus Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/70/2008 ORDER KANSAI TEXO TUBE PRIVATE LIMITED ========================================================== Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR RK PATEL(1082) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 17/09/2018

COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Learned   advocate   Mrs.Kalpana   K.   Raval,   under instructions from the department, sought permission to   withdraw   these   appeals   since   the   tax   effect involved   in   these   appeals   is   below   the   minimum threshold   limit   provided   by   CBDT   in   its   circular dated   11.07.2018   enabling   the   department   to   prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. Permission is granted. Tax Appeals are disposed of accordingly. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →