PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VADODARA-1 vs. INOX INDIA LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/418/2017HC GujaratGJHC24056938201701 October 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not pressed by the appellant (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Vadodara-1) in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. This circular stipulates that no appeal shall be filed before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, and it has been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. The reasoning was based on the appellant's own submission regarding the tax effect being below the monetary limit. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. The Tribunal 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 could seek revival of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Vadodara-1 against INOX INDIA LTD. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself, filed before the High Court. The procedural history is that the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant stated that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. This statement was made in the context of a Circular issued by the CBDT regarding monetary limits for filing appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal, involving a tax effect less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, should be entertained by the High Court, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The assessee (INOX INDIA LTD) did not present any arguments as the appeal was not pressed by the revenue. The revenue (Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Vadodara-1) argued that the tax effect is below the prescribed monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court as per Circular No. 17 of 2019, which is also applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Therefore, the revenue did not press the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/418/2017 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 418 of 2017 ========================================================== PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VADODARA-1 Versus INOX INDIA LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

Date : 01/10/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mr.Varun K. Patel, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr.Darshan R. Patel, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, has stated that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Under the circumstances, in the light of the Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 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.1,00,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and which has also been made retrospectively applicable to Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/418/2017 ORDER 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 light of the Circular dated 08.08.2019. 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) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) RAVI P. PATEL Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →