THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA 1 vs. M/S SHREEJI CORPORATION

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/467/2019HC GujaratGJHC24039614201901 October 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal noted that the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant (Revenue) stated that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. In light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, which mandates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and which is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant did not press the appeal. The Tribunal accordingly disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The Tribunal also clarified 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 decided on merits.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vadodara 1 (the Revenue) against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The assessee is M/s Shreeji Corporation. The appeal concerns Assessment Year(s) not specified in the judgment. The Revenue's learned senior standing counsel 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 Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, issued by the CBDT, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal, involving a tax effect less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, is maintainable before the High Court in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. The Revenue's contention, as presented by its learned senior standing counsel, is that the tax effect is below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Consequently, the Revenue does not press the present appeal. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/467/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 467 of 2019 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA 1 Versus M/S SHREEJI CORPORATION ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE UNSERVED(68) 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. 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 pending appeals, the learned senior standing Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/467/2019 ORDER 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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →