PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. VAPI WASTE AND EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/258/2017HC GujaratGJHC24056881201717 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 the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the minimum threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018. This circular empowers the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. By granting permission to withdraw, the Court acknowledged the department's policy decision regarding the monetary limit for pursuing appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the Revenue if they do not meet the monetary threshold stipulated by CBDT circulars for maintaining appeals before the High Court. The operative direction was that the Tax Appeals are disposed of accordingly, meaning they are dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax I (Revenue) filed numerous Tax Appeals before the High Court of Gujarat against the assessee, Mahendra Shantilal Vyas. These appeals stemmed from orders passed by lower authorities, though the specific orders and assessment years are not detailed in this excerpt. The procedural history involves the Revenue preferring these appeals. The core reason for the present action is that the tax effect in these appeals falls below the threshold limit stipulated by the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which governs the department's ability to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue is permitted to withdraw the present appeals given that the tax effect involved is below the minimum threshold limit provided by the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which enables the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court? The Revenue, through its learned advocate, argued that under instructions from the department, it sought permission to withdraw these appeals. The justification provided was that the tax effect in these appeals is below the minimum threshold limit set by the CBDT in its circular dated 11.07.2018. This circular permits the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. The Revenue relied on this circular to support its request for withdrawal. The judgment does not record any arguments from the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/1124/2014 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1124 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 109 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1216 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1251 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1385 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 148 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 159 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 188 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 189 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 204 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 258 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 273 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 275 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 329 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 330 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 366 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 390 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 391 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 399 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 400 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 435 of 2015 Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/1124/2014 ORDER With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 589 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 630 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 673 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 692 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 696 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 781 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 786 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 876 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 930 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 932 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 989 of 2011 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I Versus MAHENDRA SHANTILAL VYAS ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL, Mrs. KALPANA RAVAL, MRS MAUNA BHATT for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR RK PATEL, MR B S SOPARKAR, MR MANISH SHAH, MR TUSHAR HEMANI, MR BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== 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) Learned advocate for the appellant, under instructions from the department, sought permission to withdraw these appeals since the Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/1124/2014 ORDER 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) JYOTI V. JANI Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →