COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING) vs. UNIPHOS ENVIROTRONIC PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/198/2017HC GujaratGJHC24056852201717 December 2018Bench: 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 since the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, and in light of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which mandates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the appellant's counsel 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 could seek revival of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground based on a circular.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation & Transfer Pricing) against Uniphos Envirotronic Pvt. Ltd. The appeal was before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the provided text. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself. The procedural history is that the appeal was heard by the High Court. It is an admitted position that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. This fact is crucial to the outcome.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal (High Court) had to decide whether to proceed with the appeal given the tax effect. The appellant (Revenue) argued that the appeal should not be pressed due to the low tax effect, citing Circular No. 3/2018. The respondent (Assessee) did not present any arguments as the appeal was not pressed by the appellant. The core issue revolves around the applicability and impact of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 on pending appeals before the High Court, specifically concerning the monetary limit for filing appeals.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/198/2017 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 198 of 2017 ================================================================ COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION & TRANSFER PRICING) Versus UNIPHOS ENVIROTRONIC PVT. LTD. ================================================================ Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the PETITIONER MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the RESPONDENT ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

Date : 17/12/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mr. Varun Patel, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. S. Soparkar, 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 Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/198/2017 ORDER present appeal. 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. 4. Since this is a lead matter, papers of this matter be kept with the papers of Tax Appeal No.199 of 2017. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (A. P. THAKER, J) B.U. PARMAR Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →