Commissioner Central Tax, CGST Delhi West vs. M/S Glossy Colour And Paints
Held
The Court held that the appeal should be closed, keeping the question of law open. This decision was based on the concession by the Appellant's counsel that the tax impact was below the monetary limit stipulated by the circular dated August 22, 2019. The Court also took into account the communication from the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs dated October 19, 2022, which recommended not filing a Special Leave Petition in similar matters due to the monetary limit, but proposed to keep the question of law open. The ratio decidendi is that appeals involving tax impacts below a specified monetary threshold, as per departmental circulars, may be closed while preserving the question of law for future consideration. No specific operative directions were issued beyond closing the appeal.
Facts
The Commissioner of Central Tax, CGST Delhi West (Appellant) filed an appeal against M/s Glossy Colour and Paints (Respondent). The appeal concerns a GST matter where the tax impact was below the monetary limit fixed by a circular dated August 22, 2019. The Appellant's counsel conceded that the tax impact was below this limit. The Court noted a similar issue in CEAC 5/2022, which was closed. The revenue had proposed filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in that matter. However, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (Board), through a communication dated October 19, 2022, advised against filing an SLP due to the monetary limit, but suggested keeping the question of law 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 argued that the tax impact is below the monetary limit fixed by the circular dated August 22, 2019, as conceded by their counsel. The Appellant also relied on the Board's communication dated October 19, 2022, which advised against filing an SLP due to the monetary limit, while suggesting keeping the question of law open. The Respondent did not present any arguments as recorded in the judgment.
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 open in terms of Section 3
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.