SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Saudi Arabia imposes temporary visa ban on 14 countries, including PakistanUK protests against Israel detaining two British lawmakersGovt to set up dedicated startup India desk for budding entrepreneursDelhi Govt takes stern action against steep fee hike by private schoolsUK MP Dan Norris arrested for alleged child sex offencesIndian-American country judge nabbed on money-laundering chargesAustralia pledges 2.3 bn Australian dollar to enable households buy solar batteriesIndia, Lanka sign MoU on defence cooperationCX - Mere interconnection under Income Tax law does not establish a related party transaction under Central Excise law, thereby invalidating department's demand for duty at 110% of production cost: CESTATOwaisi moves SC against Waqf Amendment ActNo TDS to be deducted u/s 194EE on payments u/s 80CCAST - Removal of smart cards for pairing with set-top boxes (STBs) constituted job work under Rule 4(5)(a) of CCR, 2004 and thus, reversal of CENVAT credit is not required: CESTATCBIC issues AGT orders of 229 Jcs / ADCs + 308 ACs / DCs + 177 Pr Commissioners / Commissioners + 12 Pr CCs & CCsST - Activity of serving as intermediary between foreign entities & Indian customers, qualifies as export of services; commissions earned by assessee will not attract Service Tax levy: CESTATKessler Syndrome: Over 1200 objects of space debris banged into earth in 2024CX - Valuation - Specifications meant for guidance purposes per se differ from detailed engineering drawings; only the latter is to be included in assessable value: CESTATTrump grants another 75-day to TikTok to find Chinese buyerEU fears Trump beer tariffs may cost one lakh jobsTrump tosses out National Security Agency DirectorBudget Session of Parliament adjourns sine-die; 16 Bills passedHamas says Israeli offensive in Gaza is fatal for hostagesEuropean Commission votes to freeze existing sustainability rules to compete with China and USParliament passes Protection of Interest in Aircraft Objects Bill, 2025US economy adds 2.28 lakh jobs in March monthI-T - Provisions of section 50C are equally applicable to asset forming block of asset as well: ITATChina retaliates; imposes 34% tariffs on American goods
 
National litigation Policy - Applicable to appeals filed prior to issuance of CBEC instructions dated 20.10.2010 - In view of object behind Policy, court can give it retrospective effect: High Court

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, NOV 01, 2015: THIS is a revenue appeal against the order of the Tribunal setting aside the penalty imposed by the Commissioner under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994. The amount involved is Rs 1,49,170/-

The respondent assessee raised a preliminary objection on maintainability of the appeal on account of the National litigation Policy and the CBEC instructions dated 20.10.2010 in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC as the amount falls below the monetary limit.

It was contended by the revenue that the appeal was admitted on 25.3.2010 and the National Litigation Policy of the Government was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Instructions dated 20.10.2010 in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC and, therefore, there was no bar on the appellant/Department in filing the appeal.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held:

+ It is to be pointed out that the main reason for bringing into effect the National Litigation Policy is to reduce Government litigation so that the Government ceases to be a compulsive litigant. The purpose underlying this Policy is to ensure that valuable time of the Courts is spent in resolving pending cases and in bringing down the average pendency time in the Courts and to achieve this, the Government should become an 'efficient' and 'responsible' litigant. With the above object in mind, the National Litigation Policy was formulated and issued. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the appeal has been filed well before the issuance of the National Litigation Policy. However, the said aspect does not preclude the Court from giving retrospective effect to the Policy, in certain circumstances, keeping in mind the laudable object behind its issuance. This Court is also conscious of the necessity to bring down the average pendency time in the Courts so that precious judicial time does not get wasted.

+ The Court is not inclined to entertain this appeal in view of the preliminary objection made by the respondent that the monetary limit to prefer an appeal is pegged at Rs.2,00,000/- by the litigation policy of the Government issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs vide Instructions dated 20.10.2010 in F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC.

(See 2015-TIOL-2512-HC-MAD-ST)


 RECENT DISCUSSION(S) POST YOUR COMMENTS
   
 
Sub: Monetary limits for filing appeal

Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Suman Dhamija - 2015-TIOL-195-SC-IT has held that instructions regarding monetary limit for filing of appeals will govern only such cases which are filed after issuance of instructions. Supreme Court had set aside orders of High Court and remanded the cases to High Court to decide the issue on merits.

TIOL-DDT 2674 and 2675 dated 31.08.2015 and 01.09.2015 be referred.

These are personal views.

Posted by Shvetal Parikh
 
Sub: National Litigation Policy Whether CBEC Circular has prospective or retrospective effect

Kind attention is invited to TIOL-DDT 2674 dated 31.08.2015 wherein the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Suman Dhamija - 2015-TIOL-195-SC-IT was reported, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :-

The appeals and review petitions preferred by the appellants before the High Court, were disposed of on the basis of the instructions issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 9.2.2011. It is not a matter of dispute, that all the appeals were preferred prior to 2011, whereas, the instructions dated 9.2.2011 clearly indicate in paragraph 11 thereof, that they shall not govern cases which have been filed before 2011, and that, the same will govern only such cases which are filed after the issuance of the aforesaid instructions dated 9.2.2011 .

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and remanded the cases to the High Court to decide the issue on merits.

It appears that this decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court (though pertaining to Income Tax matters) has not been brought to the notice of Hon'ble High Court.

Posted by Rameshchandra Kabra
 

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Technical Session 1: Decoding New Income Tax Bill 2025

TOP NEWS


VISION 360






Technical Session 2 - Retrospective Taxation - Surge in GST Litigation - Possible Remedies.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST