CIT vs. M/S SE EXPORTS

PDF · subscribers
ITA/789/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093759201026 September 2018Bench: MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT,MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission by the Revenue's counsel that the tax effect of ₹27,18,703/- was less than ₹50 lakhs, making it fall within the scope of CBDT Circular No. 3/2018, which advises against pursuing appeals with a low tax effect. The court granted liberty to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal if circumstances changed. The question of law was expressly kept open. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana (Revenue) against M/s S.E. Exports (Assessee). The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The appeal challenges an order or action from a lower authority, the details of which are not provided. The amount in dispute, as stated by the Revenue's counsel, is ₹27,18,703/-. The procedural history leading to this High Court appeal is not detailed, other than it being an appeal against a prior decision.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal (High Court) did not have to decide any substantive questions of law or fact. The sole issue before the court was whether to proceed with the appeal on merits. The Revenue, through its counsel, stated that the tax effect of ₹27,18,703/- was below the threshold stipulated in CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 dated 11.07.2018, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals. Therefore, the Revenue did not wish to press the appeal on merits. The Assessee's arguments are not recorded, as the Revenue conceded the appeal based on the circular.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** ITA No.789 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.09.2018 **** Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ..... Appellant Versus M/s S.E. Exports

..... Respondent CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the respondent. SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1) Learned counsel for Revenue states that the tax effect involved in this case is `27,18,703/- and in view of the recent Circular No.3/2018 dated 11.07.2018 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board Direct Taxes, the tax effect being less than `50 lacs, he does not want to press this appeal on merits. (2) In view of the CBDT Circular, the instant appeal is dismissed as not pressed. As prayed for by learned counsel for the appellant, liberty is granted to the Revenue to seek revival of the appeal, if need be, in the changed circumstances. The question of law is also kept open.

(SURYA KANT)

JUDGE 26.09.2018

(SUDIP AHLUWALIA) Bhumika JUDGE 1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes 2. Whether reportable: No Bhumika Bhati 2018.09.28 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →