THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/786/2019HC GujaratGJHC24020916201926 November 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The decision was based on the submission made by the Revenue's counsel regarding CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. This circular stipulates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. The amount in dispute in this case was Rs. 49,16,866/-, which falls below the specified monetary limit. The Court 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 have the liberty to seek revival of the appeal. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against M/s Adani Infrastructure and Development Pvt Ltd (Assessee). The amount in dispute was Rs. 49,16,866/-. The appeal was before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The procedural history indicates that the Revenue filed the present Tax Appeal challenging an order, the details of which are not specified in the provided text. The Revenue's counsel submitted before the High Court that the appeal was not being pressed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal, involving a tax effect of Rs. 49,16,866/-, is maintainable before the High Court in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019. Contentions: Assessee: No specific contentions are recorded for the assessee in the provided judgment. Revenue: The Revenue, through its learned senior standing counsel, submitted that under Circular No. 17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019, no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court. This circular is also retrospectively applicable to pending appeals. Therefore, the Revenue does not press the present appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/786/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 786 of 2019 ========================================================== THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 Versus M/S ADANI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT PVT LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

Date : 26/11/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr.B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the amount involved in the present case is Rs.49,16,866/-. 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 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 Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/786/2019 ORDER 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 →