COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAJKOT 3 vs. KANERIYA OIL INDS.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/366/2015HC GujaratGJHC24047808201517 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 tax appeals. The Court acknowledged the Revenue's submission that the tax effect in these appeals was below the minimum threshold limit stipulated by the CBDT in its circular dated July 11, 2018. This circular empowers the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the Court disposed of all the Tax Appeals as withdrawn. The specific tax effect amounts or the assessment years for which these appeals were filed were not detailed in the judgment, nor were any specific legal provisions discussed beyond the reference to the CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax I (Revenue) filed multiple Tax Appeals before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad against the assessee, Mahendra Shantilal Vyas. These appeals stemmed from various assessment years and challenged orders passed by lower authorities. The appeals were consolidated for hearing. The Revenue, through its learned advocate, sought permission to withdraw these appeals. The reason provided for withdrawal was that the tax effect involved in each appeal was below the minimum threshold limit prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in its circular dated July 11, 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 tax appeals on the ground that the tax effect is below the CBDT's prescribed threshold limit for preferring and maintaining appeals before the High Court? (Question of procedure/administrative policy) The Revenue contended that the CBDT circular dated July 11, 2018, provides a threshold limit for the tax effect below which appeals should not be preferred or maintained. Since the tax effect in the present appeals falls below this limit, the department, acting under instructions, sought permission to withdraw them. The Revenue relied on the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018. The Assessee's contentions were not recorded in the judgment.

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 →