COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS) vs. RAJHANS EDUCATION TRUST

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/673/2018HC GujaratGJHC24035664201817 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 tax appeals. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's submission that the tax effect in these appeals was below the minimum threshold limit stipulated by the CBDT in its circular dated 11.07.2018. This circular enables the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. The Court accepted this reason and disposed of the appeals accordingly. The ratio decidendi is that appeals can be withdrawn by the Revenue if they do not meet the monetary limits prescribed by administrative instructions like CBDT circulars, provided permission is sought and granted by the court. No specific issue was left undecided as the appeals were withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax I against Mahendra Shantilal Vyas. Numerous tax appeals were listed for hearing. The learned advocate for the appellant (Revenue), under instructions from the department, sought permission to withdraw these appeals. The reason cited for withdrawal was that the tax effect involved in these appeals was below the minimum threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT in its circular dated 11.07.2018, which governs the department's ability to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. The High Court granted the permission to withdraw.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Revenue is permitted to withdraw the tax appeals on the ground that the tax effect is below the threshold limit specified in the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018? (Question of procedure/administrative policy) The Revenue argued that the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018 provides a threshold limit for maintaining appeals before the High Court. As the tax effect in the present appeals falls below this limit, the department, acting under instructions, sought permission to withdraw them. The Revenue relied on the CBDT circular to justify its request for withdrawal. The Assessee did not record any arguments in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/1124/2014 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1124 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 109 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1216 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1251 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1385 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 148 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 159 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 188 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 189 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 204 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 258 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 273 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 275 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 329 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 330 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 366 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 390 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 391 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 399 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 400 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 435 of 2015 Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/1124/2014 ORDER With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 589 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 630 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 673 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 692 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 696 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 781 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 786 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 876 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 930 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 932 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 989 of 2011 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I Versus MAHENDRA SHANTILAL VYAS ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL, Mrs. KALPANA RAVAL, MRS MAUNA BHATT for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR RK PATEL, MR B S SOPARKAR, MR MANISH SHAH, MR TUSHAR HEMANI, MR BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA

Date : 17/09/2018 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Learned advocate for the appellant, under instructions from the department, sought permission to withdraw these appeals since the Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/1124/2014 ORDER 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) JYOTI V. JANI Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →