PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VADODARA-1, vs. GELIKEPS PVT. LTD.

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/100/2017HC GujaratGJHC24056785201701 October 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal decided that the appeal should be disposed of as not pressed. The reasoning is based on the appellant's (Revenue's) submission that the tax effect involved is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. This fact, coupled with the applicability of Circular No. 17 of 2019 (dated 08.08.2019), which bars appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable, led the Revenue's counsel not to press the appeal. The ratio decidendi is that appeals falling below the monetary threshold specified in CBDT circulars, particularly when made retrospective, should not be pursued. The operative direction is that the appeal is disposed of as not pressed. However, the appellant is permitted to seek revival of the appeal if there is any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the circular is otherwise not applicable. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-Vadodara-1 (the Revenue) against Gelikeps Pvt. Ltd. (the Assessee). The assessment year(s) are not specified. The appeal challenges an order or action that is not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history is that the Revenue's learned senior standing counsel stated that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. This statement was made in the context of Circular No. 17 of 2019, which sets a monetary limit for filing appeals before the High Court and is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal, with a tax effect less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, is maintainable before the High Court in light of Circular No. 17 of 2019, which stipulates a monetary limit for such appeals. The Revenue's contention, as presented by its learned senior standing counsel, is that the tax effect is below the threshold stipulated in Circular No. 17 of 2019. Consequently, the Revenue does not press the appeal. The Assessee's arguments are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/100/2017 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 100 of 2017 ========================================================== PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-VADODARA-1, Versus GELIKEPS PVT. LTD. ========================================================== Appearance: MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) 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 : 01/10/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mr.Varun K. Patel, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr.B.S. Soparkar, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. Mr. Varun K. Patel, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant, has stated that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less than Rs.1,00,00,000/-. 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 Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/100/2017 ORDER 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 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 →