THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 vs. JINDAL STAINLESS STEELWAY LTD,

PDF · subscribers
ITA/1238/2018HC DelhiDLHC01114186201802 November 2018Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided to dispose of the appeal based on the Revenue's submission regarding the tax effect being below Rs. 50 lacs, as per Circular No. 3/2018. The Tribunal recorded the statement made by the counsel for the Revenue and, in terms thereof, disposed of the appeal. The question of law involved was left open. The Tribunal clarified that if the appeal falls under any exception to the circular, the Revenue can seek revival of the appeal. The issue of delay in refiling the appeal was not examined and would be considered only in case an application for revival is filed.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5 (Revenue) against Jindal Stainless Steelway Ltd. (Assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order or action, the details of which are not provided. The procedural history relevant to the disposal of the appeal is that the Revenue's counsel stated that the tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs. 50 lacs. This statement was made in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide whether to dispose of the appeal based on the tax effect being below the threshold specified in Circular No. 3/2018. The Revenue argued that the appeal may be disposed of without examining the issue/question involved, as the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lacs, in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018. The judgment does not record any arguments from the Assessee.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1238/2018 and CM No. 46335/2018

THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 ..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Advocate.

versus

JINDAL STAINLESS STEELWAY LTD, ..... Respondent

Through CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

O R D E R %

02.11.2018

Counsel for the Revenue states that tax effect in the present appeal is below Rs.50 lacs and hence in terms of Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11th July, 2018 the appeal may be disposed of without examining the issue/question involved, which may be left open. Recording the said statement and in terms thereof, the appeal is disposed of leaving the question of law open. We also clarify that in case the appeal is covered by any exception, it will be open to the Revenue to ask for revival of the appeal. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not examine the question of delay in refiling of the appeal. This issue would be examined in case application for revival is filed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J. NOVEMBER 02, 2018 MR

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →