Pr Commissioner Of CGST Delhi North vs. M/S Vikas Cable Company
Held
The Court held that the appeal should be closed. This decision was based on the appellant's concession that the tax impact was below the monetary limit fixed by the circular dated August 22, 2019. The Court also took into account the communication from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), which advised against filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) due to the monetary limit. However, in line with the CBIC's suggestion, the Court decided to keep the question of law open, as permitted by Section 35R of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The operative direction was to close the appeal, preserving the possibility of addressing the legal question in future instances. No specific tax amount or period was detailed in the judgment.
Facts
The appellant, the Principal Commissioner of CGST Delhi North, appealed against an order concerning M/s Vikas Cable Company. The appeal was filed before the Delhi High Court. The revenue, represented by its counsel, conceded that the tax impact in the case was below the monetary limit stipulated by a circular dated August 22, 2019. This circular likely sets a threshold below which appeals or further litigation are discouraged. The Court noted that a similar matter, CEAC 5/2022, had been closed, and the revenue had proposed filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP). However, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) advised against filing an SLP due to the monetary limit, suggesting that the question of law could be kept open.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal should be entertained given that the tax impact is below the monetary limit prescribed by the circular dated August 22, 2019? The appellant (revenue) argued that while the tax impact is below the monetary limit, the question of law could be kept open. The respondent (M/s Vikas Cable Company) did not present any arguments on this point as recorded in the judgment. The Court had to decide whether to proceed with the appeal or close it, considering the revenue's concession and the CBIC's communication regarding the monetary limit and the possibility of keeping the question of law open.
Sections Cited
Section 35R
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
It is not disputed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the tax impact is below the monetary limit, fixed by circular dated 22.08.2019. 2. We may note, that a matter involving somewhat similar issue(s) i.e., CEAC 5/2022 was closed by us, whereupon a proposal was made by revenue to the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs [in short “Board”] to file a special leave petition (SLP).
The Board, via its communication dated 19.10.2022, categorically indicated that an SLP should not be preferred, keeping in view, the monetary limit; however, the question of law could be kept ope
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.