COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - RAJKOT - I vs. JAYENDRA KIRITSINH VALA PROP. M/S RAVI ENTERPRISE

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/385/2013HC GujaratGJHC24043363201327 November 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that since it is an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, and in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which stipulates that no appeal where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limit of Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and has been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant (Revenue) does not press the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. The Tribunal also noted that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was withdrawn by the appellant.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax - Rajkot - I (the Revenue) against Jayendra Kiritsinh Vala, proprietor of M/s Ravi Enterprise (the assessee). The appeal is before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The procedural history is that the Revenue filed the present Tax Appeal. The material fact that emerged during the hearing is that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. This fact is admitted by both parties. The appeal was listed for hearing before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal, involving a tax effect less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, is maintainable before the High Court, considering the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018. This is a question of law. The Revenue contended that under CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and this circular is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue does not press the present appeal. The Assessee did not record any specific arguments, but their counsel was present.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/385/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 385 of 2013 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - RAJKOT - I Versus JAYENDRA KIRITSINH VALA PROP. M/S RAVI ENTERPRISE ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the APPELLANT(s) No. 1 MR SIRAJ R GORI(2298) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

Date : 27/11/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. Siraj Gori, 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. Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/385/2013 ORDER 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. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (A. P. THAKER, J) Z.G. SHAIKH Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →