THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. S.CHANDRAN

PDF · subscribers
WTA/8/2009HC KeralaKLHC01080027200901 March 2012Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the appeals by setting aside the orders of the Tribunal. The Court found prima facie force in the Revenue's submission that the maintainability of appeals should be determined based on the Circular prevalent at the time of filing. However, the Court felt that this issue could be decided after the Tribunal disposes of the cases on merits. The Court left the right to challenge the maintainability of appeals before the Tribunal and subsequently before the High Court to the assessee. The operative direction was to set aside the Tribunal's orders and remand the matters for decision on merits after hearing both sides. The assessee was granted freedom to challenge the maintainability of appeals while challenging the orders on merit, if they had a grievance.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax against orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had declined to entertain the appeals on the grounds that, under revised norms prescribed by a CBDT Circular issued after the appeals were filed, they were not maintainable. The Revenue contended that the maintainability of appeals should be determined based on the Circular prevalent at the time of filing. The High Court found prima facie merit in the Revenue's submission but also noted that the issue of maintainability could be decided after the Tribunal disposed of the cases on merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the maintainability of the appeals before the Tribunal should be decided based on the CBDT Circular prevalent on the date of filing the appeals, or based on a subsequent revised Circular. (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee regarding the maintainability of the appeals. The assessee was given the freedom to challenge the maintainability of appeals if they had a grievance against the Tribunal's future orders. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the maintainability of appeals should be considered with reference to the Circular prevalent as on the date of filing the appeals. They relied on the decision of this court in COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. JOHN L. CHACKOLA (337 ITR 385) and a Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. VARINDERA CONSTRUCTION CO. (331 ITR 449).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/11TH PHALGUNA 1933 WTA.No. 8 of 2009 ( ) ----------------------------- WTA.8/COCH/2005 of INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .......... APPELLANT(S):/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S):RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- SHRI.S.CHANDRAN, PATTARUMADOM, CHIRAYINKIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WEALTH TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-03-2012, ALONG WITH W.T.A. NO.23 OF 2009 AND CONNECTED CASES THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss

W.T.A. NO.8/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DTD. 29.3.2004. B:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX (APPEALS ) DTD. 10.12.04. C:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DTD. 25.9.06. D:- COPY OF THE CBDT'S INSTRUCTION NO.2/05 DTD. 24.10.05. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE tss

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, & BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ. .................................................................... W.T. Appeal Nos.8,23,29 & 34 of 2009 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of March, 2012. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J.

The Tribunal has declined to entertain the appeals for the reason that under the revised norms prescribed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes' Circular issued subsequent to filing of appeals, the appeals are not maintainable. However, Standing Counsel referred to the decision of this court in COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. JOHN L. CHACKOLA reported in 337 ITR 385 and the Full Bench decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. VARINDERA CONSTRUCTION CO. reported in 331 ITR 449 and submitted that maintainability of appeals have to be considered with reference to the Circular prevalent as on date of filing the appeals. Prima facie we find force in the position canvassed by the Revenue. However, we feel this issue also can be decided, if occasion arises after the Tribunal dispose of the case on merits. Leaving the right to challenge maintainability of appeals before the Tribunal and in turn to

WTA 8/09 & conn. 2 the High Court to the assessee, we allow these appeals by setting aside the orders of the Tribunal, for decision on merits after hearing both sides. If the assessee has grievance against Tribunal's orders to be passed, the assessee is given freedom to challenge maintainability of appeals while challenging the orders on merit.

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH Judge pms

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →