PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 vs. NETVISION WEB TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/482/2015HC GujaratGJHC24047860201507 January 2022Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tax Appeal was not pressed by the appellant (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3) in view of the low tax effect, as per Circular No. 17/2019 dated August 8, 2019. The court disposed of the appeal accordingly, referencing the monetary limits for appeals before various judicial forums. The court reserved the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal in case of any difficulty. The principle derived is that appeals with low tax effect, falling below the prescribed monetary limits in the relevant CBDT circular, may not be pressed and can be disposed of on that basis. No specific issue was decided on merits.

What were the facts?

This matter concerns a Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3 against Netvision Web Technologies Pvt Ltd. The appeal was listed for an appropriate order by the Registry. The appeal was notified due to its low tax effect. The court was to dispose of the appeal in light of Circular No. 17/2019, dated August 8, 2019, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which outlines monetary limits for filing appeals. The circular specifies monetary limits for appeals before the Appellate Tribunal (Rs. 50,00,000), High Court (Rs. 1,00,00,000), and Supreme Court (Rs. 2,00,00,000). The appeal was disposed of in accordance with this circular.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether to proceed with the hearing of the Tax Appeal given its low tax effect, in light of the CBDT's Circular No. 17/2019. The court had to decide how to dispose of the appeal based on the monetary limits prescribed by the circular. The Revenue's contention, as indicated by the court's order, was that the appeal was not pressed due to the low tax effect, aligning with the policy outlined in the circular. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/482/2015 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 482 of 2015 ========================================================== PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3 Versus NETVISION WEB TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MR MANISH R. BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR M R BHATT & CO. (5953) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED(64) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

Date : 07/01/2022

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. The Registry has notified the appeal for the purpose of passing an appropriate order. The captioned appeal has been notified because of the low tax effect. The appeal is to be disposed of keeping in mind the Circular No.17/2019, dated 8 th August, 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 2. This tax appeal is not pressed in view of the low tax effect having regard to the Circular No.17/2019, dated 8 th August, 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, New Delhi. 3. According to the new policy as reflected from the Circular referred to above, the table for monetary limits is as follows:- Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/482/2015 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 Sr. No. Appeals/SLPs in Income-tax matters Monetary Limit (Rs.) 1 Before Appellate Tribunal 50,00,000 2 Before High Court 1,00,00,000 3 Before Supreme Court 2,00,00,000 4. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. In case of any difficulty, we reserve the liberty for the Revenue to revive the tax appeal. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →