PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AMAR DEVELOPERS

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1242/2018HC GujaratGJHC24057936201814 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 was based on the appellant's submission that the tax effect was below the monetary limit stipulated in Circular No. 17 of 2019, rendering the appeal non-maintainable before the High Court. The Circular, being retrospectively applicable, meant that pending appeals with a similar tax effect were also to be withdrawn. The ratio decidendi is that appeals filed before the High Court that fall below the monetary threshold specified in CBDT circulars, especially those with retrospective effect, should be withdrawn or not pressed. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal as not pressed. The judgment also noted that if there was any error in the tax effect computation or if the circular was otherwise not applicable, the appellant could seek revival of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax against Amar Developers. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The order or action under challenge is the appeal itself, filed before the High Court. The procedural history involves the appellant's counsel stating that the tax effect in the appeal is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. This statement was made in light of Circular No. 17 of 2019, which provides that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present appeal, involving a tax effect less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, should be entertained by the High Court, considering Circular No. 17 of 2019. The assessee (Revenue) argued that the appeal should not be pressed as per Circular No. 17 of 2019, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect below Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. The judgment does not record any arguments from the respondent (assessee).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/1242/2018 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1242 of 2018 ========================================================== PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus AMAR DEVELOPERS ========================================================== Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN

Date : 14/10/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. Heard Mrs.Kalpana K. Raval, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Ms.Vaibhavi K. Parikh, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. Mrs.Kalpana K. Raval, 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/- Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/1242/2018 ORDER shall be filed before the High Court and which has also been made retrospectively applicable to 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 →