PRIN. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ARTISTIC STONE PVT LTD

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/931/2017HC GujaratGJHC24057197201714 October 2019Bench: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. In light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, which mandates that appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- should not be filed before the High Court and which has retrospective applicability to pending appeals, the Revenue's counsel stated that the appeal was not pressed. Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal as not pressed. The Court also provided a liberty to the appellant to seek revival of the appeal if there was any error in the computation of the tax effect or if the Circular was not applicable for any reason. No specific issue was left undecided; the appeal was disposed of based on the concession made by the Revenue.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Revenue) against Artistic Stone Pvt Ltd (Assessee). The specific assessment year(s) are not mentioned. The appeal challenges an order or action of an authority, but the nature of that order and the authority are not detailed. The tax effect involved in the appeal is stated to be less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The procedural history is that the appeal was filed and listed for hearing before the High Court of Gujarat.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable before the High Court given the tax effect involved, in light of CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019? The Revenue, through its learned senior standing counsel, argued that the tax effect in the appeal is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 17 of 2019, dated 08.08.2019, which stipulates that no appeal with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and which is retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the Revenue stated that it does not press the present appeal. The Assessee's contentions are not recorded in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/TAXAP/931/2017 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 931 of 2017 ========================================================== PRIN. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus ARTISTIC STONE PVT LTD ========================================================== Appearance: MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 KULDEEP K ADESARA(9222) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 MR KM PARIKH(575) 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 Mr.Kuldeep K. Adesara, 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/- shall be filed before the High Court and which Page 1 of 2

C/TAXAP/931/2017 ORDER 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 →