COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I vs. M/S NIDHI DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers

TAXAP/541/2011HC GujaratGJHC24045058201117 September 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA3 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court granted permission to the Revenue to withdraw the appeals. The reasoning provided is that the Revenue, under instructions from the department, sought withdrawal because the tax effect in these appeals was below the minimum threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT in its circular dated 11.07.2018. This circular guides the department on when to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. Consequently, the Tax Appeals were disposed of as withdrawn. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original tax disputes was decided, as the appeals were withdrawn on a procedural ground related to the monetary limit for appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Income Tax Officer (Revenue) against Kansai Texo Tube Private Limited (Assessee). A total of 43 Tax Appeals were consolidated for hearing. The appeals challenged orders passed by lower authorities, though the specific assessment years and the nature of the orders are not detailed in this excerpt. The procedural history relevant here is that the Revenue sought permission to withdraw these appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue should be permitted to withdraw the appeals. This question arises from the Revenue's submission that the tax effect involved in these appeals is below the minimum threshold limit provided by the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which enables the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the Assessee. The Assessee is represented by Mr. R.K. Patel. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through its learned advocate Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval, sought permission to withdraw these appeals. The sole ground for withdrawal is that the tax effect in these appeals falls below the threshold limit stipulated in the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which sets the criteria for the department to file and pursue appeals before the High Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/70/2008 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 70 of 2008 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 101 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1029 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1167 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1169 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1195 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1196 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1197 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1374 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1436 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1491 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1534 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1558 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1598 of 2008 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1599 of 2008 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 16 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1819 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1866 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1927 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2028 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2029 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2030 of 2010 Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/70/2008 ORDER With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 218 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 2348 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 242 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 431 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 444 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 541 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 613 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 614 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 732 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 845 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 863 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 871 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 873 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 944 of 2009 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 988 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 989 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 990 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 991 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 992 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 993 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 994 of 2011 ========================================================== THE INCOME TAX OFFICER Versus Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/70/2008 ORDER KANSAI TEXO TUBE PRIVATE LIMITED ========================================================== Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR RK PATEL(1082) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 17/09/2018

COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Learned advocate Mrs.Kalpana K. Raval, under instructions from the department, sought permission to withdraw these appeals since the tax effect involved in these appeals is below the minimum threshold limit provided by CBDT in its circular dated 11.07.2018 enabling the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. Permission is granted. Tax Appeals are disposed of accordingly. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) ANKIT SHAH Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →