COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I vs. JAY BHARAT STEELS PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/686/2013HC GujaratGJHC24043461201317 September 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, comprising Justices Akil Kureshi and B.N. Karia, dismissed all the Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue. The dismissal was solely on the ground that the tax effect involved in each of these appeals was below the minimum monetary threshold stipulated by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) in its circular dated 11.7.2018. This circular sets the limit for the Revenue to file appeals before the High Court. Since the condition precedent for maintaining the appeals, i.e., the tax effect exceeding the prescribed limit, was not met, the Court found no reason to delve into the merits of the substantive issues raised by the Revenue. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeals. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeals were disposed of on a preliminary procedural ground.

What were the facts?

These are numerous Tax Appeals filed by the Revenue, the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, against the respondent, Anupam Silk Mills Private Ltd. The appeals challenge various orders passed by lower authorities concerning assessment years not specified in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that these appeals were filed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The core of the matter, as revealed in the order, pertains to the tax effect involved in these appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue are maintainable before the High Court given the tax effect involved? (Question of law, turning on CBDT Circulars and the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the assessee regarding the merits of the appeals. The assessee's role in the proceedings leading to this order was primarily as the respondent. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, informed the Court that the tax effect in these appeals is below the minimum threshold prescribed by the CBDT in its latest circular dated 11.7.2018, which dictates the conditions under which the Revenue can maintain appeals before the High Court. The Revenue did not argue the merits of any of the substantive grounds of appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/1331/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1331 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1333 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1334 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1360 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1420 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1430 of 2011 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 50 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 89 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 456 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO.457 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 458 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 530 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 538 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 541 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 640 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 642 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 679 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 744 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 745 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 746 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 826 of 2012 With Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/1331/2011 ORDER R/TAX APPEAL NO. 878 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 879 of 2012 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 190 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 353 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 585 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO.686 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 787 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 792 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 871 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 961 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 962 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 963 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 964 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1036 of 2013 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 332 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 594 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 617 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 875 of 2014 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I Versus ANUPAM SILK MILLS PRIVATE LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA BHATT, for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR VARUN K PATEL for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR TUSHAR P HEMANI(2790) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/1331/2011 ORDER MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR MANISH J SHAH for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR BS SOPARKAR for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR RK PATEL for the RESPONDENT(s) No. MR TEJ SHAH for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ========================================================== 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) We are informed that the tax effect involved in these appeals filed by the Revenue is below the minimum threshold prescribed by CBDT in its latest   circular   dated   11.7.2018   to   enable   the Revenue   to   maintain   appeals   before   the   High Court. Tax Appeals are therefore, dismissed only on this ground. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) K.K. SAIYED Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →