COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ABBAS NABI SHAIKH

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/190/2013HC GujaratGJHC24043299201317 September 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the tax effect involved in these appeals filed by the Revenue was below the minimum threshold prescribed by the CBDT in its circular dated July 11, 2018, for maintaining appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed solely on this ground. The reasoning is that the CBDT circular sets a monetary limit for the Revenue to pursue appeals, and if the tax effect is below this limit, the appeals are not to be entertained. No decision was made on the merits of the substantive tax issues, if any. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Tax Appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax-I) against the respondent, Anupam Silk Mills Private Ltd. The appeals concerned various assessment years, though not explicitly stated in this excerpt. The core issue revolves around the tax effect involved in these appeals. The Revenue informed the High Court that the tax effect in these appeals falls below the minimum threshold prescribed by the CBDT in its circular dated July 11, 2018, for maintaining appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the appeals were to be dismissed on this procedural ground.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable before the High Court given that the tax effect is below the threshold prescribed by the CBDT circular dated July 11, 2018? (Question of law turning on the interpretation and applicability of CBDT Circular dated 11.07.2018). Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee. The matter was decided based on information provided to the court. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue itself brought to the notice of the High Court that the tax effect involved in these appeals is below the minimum threshold prescribed by the CBDT in its latest circular dated July 11, 2018, for maintaining appeals before the High Court. This statement implies the Revenue acknowledged the potential non-maintainability of the appeals on this ground.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/1331/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1331 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1333 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1334 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1360 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1420 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1430 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 50 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 89 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 456 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO.457 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 458 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 530 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 538 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 541 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 640 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 642 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 679 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 744 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 745 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 746 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 826 of 2012 With Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/1331/2011 ORDER R/TAX APPEAL NO. 878 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 879 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 190 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 353 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 585 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO.686 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 787 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 792 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 871 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 961 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 962 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 963 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 964 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1036 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 332 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 594 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 617 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 875 of 2014 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Versus ANUPAM SILK MILLS PRIVATE LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA BHATT, for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR VARUN K PATEL for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR TUSHAR P HEMANI(2790) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/1331/2011 ORDER MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR MANISH J SHAH for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR BS SOPARKAR for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR RK PATEL for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR TEJ SHAH for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 17/09/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) We are informed that the tax effect involved in these appeals filed by the Revenue is below the minimum threshold prescribed by CBDT in its latest   circular   dated   11.7.2018   to   enable   the Revenue   to   maintain   appeals   before   the   High Court. Tax Appeals are therefore, dismissed only on this ground. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) K.K. SAIYED Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →