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

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/1196/2010HC GujaratGJHC24046165201017 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 provided was that the tax effect involved in all the appeals was below the minimum threshold limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in its circular dated 11.07.2018. This circular enables the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. Since the condition for maintaining appeals based on tax effect was not met, the Revenue was permitted to withdraw them. The appeals were disposed of accordingly. No specific findings were made on the merits of the underlying tax disputes, and no issue was left undecided as the appeals were withdrawn by the appellant.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Officer (Revenue) filed numerous Tax Appeals before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The appeals were against Kansai Texo Tube Private Limited (Assessee). The appeals challenged various orders, though the specific assessment years and the authorities that passed the impugned orders are not detailed in this excerpt. The procedural history involves the filing of multiple appeals over several years, commencing from 2008. The core of the matter, as revealed in the order, pertains to the tax effect involved in these appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable before the High Court given the tax effect involved? (Question of law, turning on the applicability of CBDT circulars regarding monetary limits for appeals). Assessee's Contention: The assessee is not recorded as having made any specific arguments in this excerpt. The Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals is based on the tax effect being below the threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned advocate, sought permission to withdraw the appeals. The reason provided was that the tax effect in these appeals is below the minimum threshold limit stipulated 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.

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 →