SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

PLI scheme for electronics manufacturing sees incremental investment of Rs 8,390 CrG20 finance leaders agree to tax super-rich but forum not yet readyDPIIT promotes green logistics industry balancing economic growth and environmentIndia, US ink pact to stymie illegal trafficking of cultural propertyRailways expands tracks by 31,180 kmFroth in Yamuna river: Delhi complains to Centre against UP and HaryanaGovt to enhance reach of Indian Digital Public InfrastructureFormer BJP Minister says BJP has totally failed as Opposition in KarnatakaGovt provides incentives to small tea growersEU penalises 5 countries for infringing budget rulesI-T-Transaction involving transfer of unutilised shares cannot be deemed to be sale of shares so as to attract levy of Long Term Capital Gain u/s 112: ITATChina says Relations with Japan at critical stageST - Once the activity of appellant that is of forfeituring the amount of earnest money is not a declared service, question of retaining said money as consideration for rendering such service becomes absolutely redundant: CESTATEU medicines regulator disapproves Alzheimer’s new drugSC says no restrictions on voluntary name banners along Kanwar route eateriesFM favours debt reduction but sans affecting economic growthKargil Victory Day: PM warns Pak against practising terrorismChina pumps in subsidies worth USD 41 bn into car sectorMisc - Payments made to Government cannot be deemed to be a tax merely because statute provides for their recovery as arrears: SC CBMisc - Royalty not a tax; royalty is contractual consideration paid by mining lessee to lessor for enjoyment of mineral rights & liability to pay royalty arises out of contractual conditions of mining lease: SC CBMisc - Since power to tax mineral rights is provided for in Entry 50 of List II, Parliament cannot use its residuary powers in this subject matter: SC CBCus - Owner of goods has a liability to pay customs duty even after confiscated goods are redeemed on payment of fine - Interest follows: SC
 
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
Dr. Shailendra Kumar, Chairman, TIOL Knowledge Foundation, addressing the gathering

TOP NEWS


AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST