PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD 4 vs. SUZLON ENERGY LIMITED

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/446/2015HC GujaratGJHC24047849201525 February 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it is an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. In light of Circular No. 3/2018, which provides that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and has retrospective applicability to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not pressed. The court 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. The ratio decidendi is that appeals with a tax effect below the prescribed monetary limit, as per CBDT circulars, are not to be pressed by the revenue.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad 4, against Suzlon Energy Limited. The appeal concerns assessment year(s) not specified in the judgment. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself, filed before the High Court. The procedural history relevant to the decision is that the tax effect involved in the appeal was admitted to be less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. The appellant's counsel did not press the appeal due to this admitted tax effect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal should be dismissed on the grounds of low tax effect, considering the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. Assessee's Contention: The assessee did not explicitly argue any points as the appeal was not pressed by the revenue. However, the appeal was filed by the revenue. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (revenue) did not press the present appeal in light of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which stipulates that no appeal where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/446/2015 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 446 of 2015 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD 4 Versus SUZLON ENERGY LIMITED ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR TUSHAR P HEMANI(2790) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

Date : 25/02/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Tushar Hemani, 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/446/2015 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) Vijay Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →