Dismissed

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax v. Aslam Khan S/O Shri Mangatu Khan

Rajasthan HC7 Dec 2021CUSTA/3/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The appellant challenged a CESTAT judgment on grounds of monetary value falling below the revised limit of Rs. 1 crore under an Instruction dated 22.08.2019. No exceptions for substantial legal questions were found applicable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as being not maintainable.

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Vs… — GST and Indirect Tax | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Custom Appeal No. 3/2021

¶3

Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, (Cgst C.c And C.e. Jaipur-I), Ncrb Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, JaipurRajasthan- 302005

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Aslam Khan S/o Shri Mangatu Khan, 549 Vyaparioa Ka Mohalla, Jaswantgarh, Tehsil Ladnu, Nagaur, Rajasthan-341304.

¶7

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satya Narayan Sethi

¶8

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶9

Order

¶10

07/12/2021

¶11

This appeal is filed by the Custom Department to challenge the judgment of CESTAT dated 19.01.2021. At the outset they have raised the question of maintainability of the appeal since the monetary effect involved was Rs.6,32,362/-. The instruction issued by the Ministry of Finance on 22.08.2019 revised the monetary limits enabling the Revenue to prefer appeals before CESTAT, High Courts and Supreme Court. In particular with respect to the High Court this circular provides that appeal shall not be filed if the monetary limit is less than Rs.1 crore. Significantly, this circular is to apply even to the pending appeals. Paragraph 4 of the circular however provides that issues involving substantial question of law as prescribed in para 1.3 of instruction dated 17.08.2011 would be decided irrespective of the monetary

¶12

(2 of 2)

¶13

[CUSTA-3/2021]

¶14

limit. In turn if we peruse the instruction dated 17.08.2011 para 1.3 provides for following exceptions:-

¶15

“1.3 Adverse judgments relating to the following should be contested irrespective of the amount involved:

¶16

a) Where the constitutional validity of the provisions of an Act or Rule is under challenge.

¶17

b) Where Notification/Instruction/Order or Circular has been held illegal or ultra vires.”

¶18

As per this clause which is also borrowed in the latest circular dated 22.08.2019, appeal would be filed irrespective of the amount involved where constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act or Rules are under challenge and where notification, instruction, order or circular has been held illegal or ultra vires. Undisputedly the present case does not fall in either of these two exceptions. Appeal is therefore not maintainable and dismissed.

¶19

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶20

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶21

N.Gandhi /FR Bohra/S-98

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax v. Aslam Khan S/O Shri Mangatu Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax v. Aslam Khan S/O Shri Mangatu Khan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Kumar S/O Sh. Bachchu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Monika Solanki D/O Shri Suresh Chand Solanki W/O Rahul Guha Vs Director Cum Joint Secretary

Budhram Khatana S/O Shri Mungaram Vs the Chief Manager

Sanchit Todi Son of Shri Sanjay Todi Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shri Narendra Kumar Johari Vs Commissioner of Income Tax

Suman W/O Shri Deepak Kumar Vs Deputy Director, Women and Child Development Department