PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VADODARA-2 vs. CHAROTAR GAS SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/214/2016HC GujaratGJHC24051684201621 January 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 since it was an admitted position between the parties that 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 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which stipulates 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 Revenue did not press the appeal. The appeal was accordingly 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. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on a procedural/administrative ground.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Vadodara-2 (the Revenue) against Charotar Gas Sahakari Mandali Ltd. (the Assessee). The appeal is before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The assessment years are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself, filed by the Revenue. The procedural history is that the appeal was heard by the High Court. A key fact is that both parties admitted that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the High Court given the tax effect involved, in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee. The assessee is represented by Mr. Manish Shah. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue, represented by Mr. Varun K. Patel, conceded that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. Consequently, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant did not press the present appeal, relying on CBDT Circular No. 3/2018.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/214/2016 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 214 of 2016 ========================================================== PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VADODARA-2 Versus CHAROTAR GAS SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 1 MR MANISH J SHAH(1320) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

Date : 21/01/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mr.Varun K. Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr.Manish Shah, 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. 3. The appeal is accordingly disposed of as not pressed in the light Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/214/2016 ORDER 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) V.R. PANCHAL Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →