COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II vs. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/35/2011HC GujaratGJHC24044929201107 January 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Court noted that the appeal was listed for passing an appropriate order due to its low tax effect, in light of Circular No. 17/2019. The Revenue stated that the appeal was not pressed due to the low tax effect, referencing the monetary limits set forth in the circular. The circular establishes a monetary limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal accordingly. The Court reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original assessment or the order under challenge was decided.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns a Tax Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-II (the Revenue) against the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (the assessee). The appeal was listed for an appropriate order. The appeal was notified due to its low tax effect. The Court was to pass an order in light of Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The circular outlines monetary limits for filing appeals before various judicial forums. The appeal was not pressed by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee is not recorded as having made any specific contentions in this judgment. The appeal was not pressed by the Revenue. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue stated that the appeal is not pressed in view of the low tax effect, having regard to Circular No. 17/2019. The circular provides monetary limits for appeals, with a limit of Rs. 1,00,00,000 for appeals before the High Court. The Revenue indicated that the appeal was being disposed of in accordance with this circular.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/35/2011 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 35 of 2011 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Versus AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE ========================================================== Appearance: MR MANISH R. BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M R BHATT & CO. (5953) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED(64) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

Date : 07/01/2022

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. The Registry has notified the appeal for the purpose of passing an appropriate order. The captioned appeal has been notified because of the low tax effect. The appeal is to be disposed of keeping in mind the Circular No.17/2019, dated 8 th August, 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 2. This tax appeal is not pressed in view of the low tax effect having regard to the Circular No.17/2019, dated 8 th August, 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 3. According to the new policy as reflected from the Circular referred to above, the table for monetary limits is as follows:- Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/35/2011 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 Sr. No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 50,00,000 2 Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000 4. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. In case of any difficulty, we reserve the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →