The High Court of Gujarat allowed the withdrawal of Tax Appeal No. 518 of 2016 after the appellant submitted a communication from the Assistant Commissioner stating the appeal was withdrawn under a Board instruction regarding duty limits. The appeal was disposed of as withdrawn.
Permission to withdraw the appeal was granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/TAXAP/518/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/TAX APPEAL NO. 518 of 2016
==========================================================
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER
Versus SWISS PAC PVT LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANKIT SHAH(6371) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED(64) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
Date : 24/10/2019 ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)
1. Mr. Ankit Shah, learned senior standing
counsel for the appellant has placed on record a
communication dated 27.08.2019 of the Assistant
Commissioner (Legal), CGST & CX, HQ, Vadodara-I
instructing him that it has been decided to
withdraw the captioned tax appeal as it involves
duty of Rs.60,63,282/-, which is less than the
monetary limit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- stipulated
underBoard'sinstructionissuedvide
F.No.390/Misc/116/2017-JC dated 22.08.2019.
2.The learned senior standing counsel for the
appellant accordingly seeks permission to
withdraw the appeal.
3.Permission, as prayed for, is granted. The
Page 1 of 2
C/TAXAP/518/2016 ORDER
appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. However, in
case there is any error in the computation of the
tax effect involved or if for any reason, the
instructionF.No.390/MISC/116/2017-JCdated
22.08.2019 is not applicable, it would be open
for the appellant to seek revival of the appeal.
(HARSHA DEVANI, J)
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
RAVI P. PATEL
Page 2 of 2
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Principal Commissioner
Swiss Pac Pvt Ltd
Harsha Devani
Sangeeta K. Vishen
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court