PRIN. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ARTISTIC STONE PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/932/2017HC GujaratGJHC24057198201717 September 2018Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court granted the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. The Court reasoned that the Revenue, acting under instructions from the department, sought permission to withdraw these appeals because the tax effect involved was below the minimum threshold limit prescribed by the CBDT in its circular dated 11.07.2018. This circular enables the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. The Court found this reason sufficient to permit withdrawal. Consequently, the Tax Appeals were disposed of accordingly. No specific issue regarding the merits of the original tax disputes was decided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax I (the Revenue) filed multiple tax appeals before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. These appeals were against the assessee, Mahendra Shantilal Vyas. The appeals challenged various orders, though the specific assessment years and the nature of the orders are not detailed in this excerpt. The procedural history involves the filing of these numerous appeals by the Revenue. The current stage is the hearing of these appeals before the High Court.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether to grant the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeals. The Revenue sought permission to withdraw these appeals because the tax effect involved in each appeal was below the minimum threshold limit stipulated by the CBDT circular dated 11.07.2018, which guides the department's decision to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. The Revenue argued that the appeals should be permitted to be withdrawn based on the CBDT circular, as pursuing them would not be cost-effective given the low tax effect. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the assessee regarding the withdrawal request, other than their appearance.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/1124/2014 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1124 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 109 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1216 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1251 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1385 of 2014 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 148 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 159 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 188 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 189 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 204 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 258 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 273 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 275 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 329 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 330 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 366 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 390 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 391 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 399 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 400 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 435 of 2015 Page 1 of 3

C/TAXAP/1124/2014 ORDER With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 589 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 630 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 673 of 2018 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 692 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 696 of 2016 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 781 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 786 of 2015 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 876 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 930 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 932 of 2017 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 989 of 2011 ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I Versus MAHENDRA SHANTILAL VYAS ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL, Mrs. KALPANA RAVAL, MRS MAUNA BHATT for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR RK PATEL, MR B S SOPARKAR, MR MANISH SHAH, MR TUSHAR HEMANI, MR BHAUMIK DHOLARIYA for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ========================================================== 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) Learned advocate for the appellant, under instructions from the department, sought permission to withdraw these appeals since the Page 2 of 3

C/TAXAP/1124/2014 ORDER tax effect involved in these appeals is below the minimum threshold limit provided by CBDT in its circular dated 11.07.2018 enabling the department to prefer and maintain appeals before the High Court. Permission is granted. Tax Appeals are disposed of accordingly. (AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) JYOTI V. JANI Page 3 of 3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →