COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MICRO INKS LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1927/2010HC GujaratGJHC24046301201017 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 Court reasoned that the Revenue's request was based on a CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which sets a minimum threshold for the tax effect for the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. Since the tax effect in these appeals was stated to be below this threshold, the Court found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tax Appeals were disposed of as withdrawn. The Court did not decide any substantive issues related to the merits of the original assessments or the orders passed by the lower authorities. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed by the Revenue can be withdrawn if they do not meet the monetary limits prescribed by administrative instructions from the CBDT.

What were the facts?

These are multiple Tax Appeals filed by the Income Tax Officer (the Revenue) against Kansai Texo Tube Private Limited (the Assessee). The appeals challenge orders passed by lower authorities. The Revenue sought permission to withdraw these appeals. The reason cited for withdrawal was that the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the minimum threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which governs the department's ability to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. The Court granted permission for withdrawal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue is permitted to withdraw the appeals on the ground that the tax effect is below the threshold limit stipulated by CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The Assessee did not present any arguments as the Revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeals. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the Assessee's side regarding the merits of the appeals. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned advocate, sought permission to withdraw the appeals. The sole ground for withdrawal was that the tax effect in these appeals was below the minimum threshold limit provided by the CBDT in its circular dated 11.07.2018. This circular enables the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. The Revenue relied on this circular to justify its request for withdrawal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 5 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

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 →