COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I vs. AMIGO SECURITIES PVT LTD (NOW KNOWN AS JEWEL CONSUMER

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/660/2013HC GujaratGJHC24043458201329 January 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 since the tax effect involved in the appeal was admitted to be less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, and in light of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which mandates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- should be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the Revenue's counsel did not press the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of as not pressed. The Court 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 would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the specified monetary threshold, as per the CBDT circular, are to be withdrawn or not pressed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I against Amigo Securities Pvt Ltd (now known as Jewel Consumer) for an assessment year not specified in the judgment. The appeal was before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The core of the matter revolved around the tax effect involved in the appeal. It was an admitted position between the appellant (Revenue) and the respondent (Assessee) that the tax effect was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. The appeal was listed for hearing before the High Court.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide whether the appeal should be entertained given the tax effect. The Revenue, through its learned Senior Standing Counsel, did not press the appeal. This was based on Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. This circular stipulates that no appeal where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and has retrospective applicability to pending appeals. The Assessee, through its learned advocate, was present. The issue implicitly concerns the applicability and effect of the aforementioned CBDT circular on the present appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/660/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 660 of 2013 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -I Versus AMIGO SECURITIES PVT LTD (NOW KNOWN AS JEWEL CONSUMER ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the APPELLANT MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED(4) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

Date : 29/01/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. S. Soparkar, 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/660/2013 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) V.R. PANCHAL Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →