Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax vs. Aslam Khan S/O Shri Mangatu Khan

Held

The Court held that the appeal filed by the appellant was not maintainable. The primary reason for this decision was the monetary limit involved in the case, which was Rs. 6,32,362/-, falling below the Rs. 1 crore threshold stipulated in the Ministry of Finance's circular dated August 22, 2019, for filing appeals before the High Court. While the appellant attempted to invoke the exception provided in paragraph 4 of the circular, which referred to substantial questions of law as per paragraph 1.3 of the August 17, 2011 instruction, the Court found that the present case did not fall within those exceptions. The exceptions, as outlined in paragraph 1.3, pertained to challenges against the constitutional validity of an Act or Rule, or where a notification, instruction, order, or circular was held illegal or ultra vires. The Court explicitly noted that the present case did not meet either of these criteria. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability.

Facts

The Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST), Jaipur-I, filed an appeal before the Rajasthan High Court challenging a judgment of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) dated January 19, 2021. The appeal involved a monetary effect of Rs. 6,32,362/-. The Revenue's right to file appeals before CESTAT, High Courts, and the Supreme Court was governed by instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance. A circular dated August 22, 2019, revised these monetary limits, stipulating that appeals to the High Court would not be filed if the monetary limit was less than Rs. 1 crore. This circular was to apply to pending appeals as well. However, paragraph 4 of the circular provided an exception for issues involving a substantial question of law, as prescribed in paragraph 1.3 of an earlier instruction dated August 17, 2011.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the appellant (Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax) is maintainable before the High Court, given the monetary limit involved and the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance? The appellant argued that the appeal was maintainable, relying on the instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance, particularly the circular dated August 22, 2019, which revised monetary limits for appeals. They contended that paragraph 4 of this circular, referencing paragraph 1.3 of the August 17, 2011 instruction, allowed for appeals irrespective of the monetary limit in certain exceptional circumstances. The respondent did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.