COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD III vs. JAIDEEP RAVINDRA AGRAWAL

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/702/2012HC GujaratGJHC24043024201212 February 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 it is an admitted position that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, and in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which stipulates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant does not press the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. The court also noted that if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is not applicable for any reason, the appellant would be at liberty to seek revival of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

This is an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad III, against Jaideep Ravindra Agrawal. The appeal pertains to an assessment year not specified in the judgment. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself, filed before the High Court. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was heard by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. It is an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. The appellant's counsel did not press the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal, where the tax effect is less than Rs. 50,00,000/-, should be entertained by the High Court, in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018. The assessee (respondent) did not present any arguments as the appeal was not pressed. The revenue (appellant) argued that the appeal should be disposed of as not pressed due to the low tax effect, citing CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. This circular mandates 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 revenue's counsel did not press the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/702/2012 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 702 of 2012 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AHMEDABAD III Versus JAIDEEP RAVINDRA AGRAWAL ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the APPELLANT (s) No. 1 MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED(64) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A. P. THAKER

Date : 12/02/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, 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/702/2012 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) Vijay Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →