THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV vs. KAILASH DARSHAN S SAHKARI KHETI MANDLI LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/740/2011HC GujaratGJHC24045139201127 November 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A. P. THAKER2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, in its oral order, noted that it was an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. In light of this fact and the provisions of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 50,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant (Revenue) stated that they did not press the present appeal. Consequently, the Court disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The Court also clarified 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.

What were the facts?

This case involves a Tax Appeal filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-IV (the Revenue) against Kailash Darshan S Sahkari Kheti Mandli Ltd (the Assessee). The appeal was filed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The core of the matter revolves around the tax effect involved in the appeal. It was an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect in this appeal was less than Rs. 50,00,000/-. This fact became crucial in determining the future course of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal is maintainable before the High Court given the tax effect involved, in light of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018. The Revenue, represented by Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, did not press the appeal. This was based on 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. This circular stipulates that no appeal shall be filed before the High Court if the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/-, and it has been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. The Assessee, represented by Mr. Manish Shah, did not present any arguments as the Revenue chose not to press the appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/740/2011 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 740 of 2011 ========================================================== THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV Versus KAILASH DARSHAN S SAHKARI KHETI MANDLI LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the PETITIONER(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 : 27/11/2018

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr. Manish Shah, 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/740/2011 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) B.U. PARMAR Page 2 of 2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →