PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 vs. SUZLON WIND INTERNATIONAL LTD.,

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/122/2018HC GujaratGJHC24008467201825 February 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. In light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which stipulates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and has retrospective applicability to pending appeals, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (Revenue) did not press the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not pressed. The Court also noted that if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular was not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 (Revenue) against Suzlon Wind International Ltd. (Assessee). The appeal challenges an order or action that is not specified in the provided text. The assessment year(s) are also not mentioned. The key procedural fact is that the tax effect involved in the appeal is admitted by both parties to be less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. This fact is crucial as it relates to a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) regarding monetary limits for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal, where the tax effect is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, is maintainable before the High Court in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018. Assessee's Contention: The assessee has not made any specific arguments recorded in the judgment. However, the appeal is being disposed of based on the tax effect and the aforementioned circular. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, does not press the present appeal. This is in light of the admitted tax effect being below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which is also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/122/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 122 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 Versus SUZLON WIND INTERNATIONAL LTD., ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

Date : 25/02/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. It is an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.50,00,000/-. Under the circumstances, in the light of the Circular No.3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes which provides that no appeal wherein the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs.50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and has also been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant does not press the present appeal. Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/122/2018 ORDER 3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of as not pressed in the light of the Circular dated 11th July, 2018. However, in case there is any error in the computation of the tax effect involved or if for any reason, the circular is not applicable, it would be open for the appellant to seek revival of the appeal. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (A. P. THAKER, J) Vijay Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →