PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, SURAT-1, SURAT vs. LAXMI SYNTEX PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/71/2018HC GujaratGJHC24008417201814 October 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, and in light of Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, which is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals, the Revenue did not press the present appeal. The reasoning was based solely on the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. The Tribunal accordingly disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as not pressed. The judgment 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. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves a Tax Appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner Income Tax, Surat-1 (the Revenue) against Laxmi Syntex Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee). The appeal was filed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The Revenue's appeal challenges an order or action that is not detailed in this excerpt. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the Tax Appeal. The material fact leading to the disposal of the appeal is the tax effect involved.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal did not have to decide any substantive issues of law or fact. The primary issue that arose was whether the appeal should be pressed by the Revenue. The Revenue, through its learned senior standing counsel, stated that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. This statement was made in light of Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, which mandates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. The Assessee's contentions are not recorded, as the appeal was not pressed by the Revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/71/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 71 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, SURAT-1, SURAT Versus LAXMI SYNTEX PVT. LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

Date : 14/10/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mrs.Kalpana K. Raval, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Ms.Vaibhavi K. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. Mrs.Kalpana K. Raval, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, has stated that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Under the circumstances, in the light of the Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019 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.1,00,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and which Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/71/2018 ORDER has also been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant does not press the present appeal. 3. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of as not pressed in light of the Circular dated 08.08.2019. 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) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) RAVI P. PATEL Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →