PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 vs. WOCO MOTHERSON ADVANCED RUBBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/128/2017HC GujaratGJHC24056801201707 January 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue due to its low tax effect, in accordance with Circular No. 17/2019. The circular establishes monetary limits for appeals, with Rs. 1,00,00,000 being the limit for appeals before the High Court. The Court noted that the appeal was to be disposed of based on this policy. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal accordingly. Liberty was reserved for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific finding was made on the merits of the original dispute, as the appeal was not pressed.

What were the facts?

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 1 (Revenue) filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad against an order concerning Woco Motherson Advanced Rubber Technologies Limited (Assessee). The appeal was notified for an appropriate order due to its low tax effect. The Revenue decided not to press the appeal in light of Circular No. 17/2019, dated August 8, 2019, issued by the Central Board Direct Taxes. This circular sets monetary limits for filing appeals. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with liberty reserved for the Revenue to revive it if any difficulty arose.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed due to low tax effect, considering the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the assessee. However, the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the appeal should be disposed of in view of the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019. The circular specifies monetary limits for appeals before various authorities, including High Courts, with a limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. The Revenue indicated that the present appeal falls within the scope of this circular, leading them to not press the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/128/2017 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 128 of 2017 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 1 Versus WOCO MOTHERSON ADVANCED RUBBER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED ========================================================== Appearance: MR MANISH R. BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M R BHATT & CO. (5953) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED(64) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

Date : 07/01/2022

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. The Registry has notified the appeal for the purpose of passing an appropriate order. The captioned appeal has been notified because of the low tax effect. The appeal is to be disposed of keeping in mind the Circular No.17/2019, dated 8 th August, 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 2. This tax appeal is not pressed in view of the low tax effect having regard to the Circular No.17/2019, dated 8 th August, 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 3. According to the new policy as reflected from the Circular referred to above, the table for monetary limits is as follows:- Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/128/2017 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 Sr. No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 50,00,000 2 Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000 4. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. In case of any difficulty, we reserve the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →