Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise, Surat vs. Raghunandan Dyeing And Printing Mills PVT LTD.
Held
The Court noted that it is an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. In light of Instruction F.No.390/Misc./116/2017/JC dated 22nd August 2019, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, which mandates that no appeal where the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 1,00,00,000/- shall be filed before the High Court and has been made retrospectively applicable to pending appeals, the learned senior standing counsel for the appellant did not press the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of 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 instruction was not applicable for any reason.
Facts
The Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Surat (appellant) filed a Tax Appeal before the High Court of Gujarat against Raghunandan Dyeing and Printing Mills Pvt Ltd. (respondent). The appeal concerned a dispute with a tax effect of less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The appellant's counsel, Mr. Jaimin A. Gandhi, acknowledged this admitted position. The appeal was filed under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime. The procedural history indicates that the appeal was pending before the High Court.
Key Issues
1. Whether the appeal is maintainable before the High Court given the tax effect involved, in light of the Instruction F.No.390/Misc./116/2017/JC dated 22nd August 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner (appellant) argued that the tax effect in the appeal is less than Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. They relied on the aforementioned Instruction dated 22nd August 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 that this instruction is applicable retrospectively to pending appeals. Due to this instruction, the petitioner did not press the appeal. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the revenue (respondent) side regarding the maintainability of the appeal. However, the respondent's counsel was present.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
Heard, Mr.Jaimin A. Gandhi, learned senior standing counsel for the appellant and Mr.Rahul L. Gajera, learned advocate for the respondent.
It is an admitted position between the parties that the tax effect involved in this appeal is less
than Rs.1,00,00,000/-.
Under the circumstances, in the light of Instruction F.No.390/Misc./116/2017/JC dated 22 nd August 2019 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department
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 Gujarat High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.