TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is filed by the Revenue challenging the judgment dated 06.08.2024 in STA No.144/2019 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'), wherein, the appeal filed by the assessee/respondent herein under Section 63 of the Act was allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: A notice under Form VAT-275 was issued to the assessee/respondent on 18.03.2015 calling upon the assessee to produce the documents in support of the return filed in Form VAT-100 for the Tax period April-2011 to March-2012. Subsequently, a proposition notice was issued to the assessee on 17.07.2015, proposing to disallow the claims of exemption and input tax credit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing the appeal filed by the assessee and setting aside concurrent findings of petitioner No.1 and 2. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee has discharged the burden sufficiently under section 70 of the Act without taking into account the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in STATE OF KARNATAKA VS M/S ECOM GILL COFFEE TRADING PVT. LTD. reported in (2023) 18 SCC 809. It is further submitted by the learned AGA that it is only before the Tribunal that the assessee placed on record the e-sugam which would prove the genuineness of the movement of the goods. Thus, it is prayed before this Court that the substantial questions of law as urged in the petition memo be admitted. 6. Per contra, Sri. M Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods as envisaged in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S ECOM GILL COFFEE TRADING PVT. LTD. (supra). Such being the circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in setting aside the concurrent findings of the petitioner No.1 and 2 by holding that the assessee has proved the genuineness of the transactions. The petitioner No.1 and 2 erred in refusing to allow the claim of the assessee for input tax credit solely for the reason that the selling dealer has failed to pay the tax. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Revenue has not made out any grounds to admit the present revision petition. Hence, the instant Revision Petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. Before parting with this order, we deem it fit to pass some further directions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appeal any further, beyond the Appellate Tribunal, if the tax effect is miniscule, unless the subject matter involved has a rippling effect on other cases. 9. In this regard, we may take note of Circular No.09/2024 dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), whereby the monetary limits for filing appeals in Income Tax matters have been enhanced. The said Circular prescribes a monetary limit of Rs.60 lakhs for appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rs.2 crores for appeals before the High Courts and Rs.5 crores for appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Circular states that the enhancement of monetary limits is a step towards management of litigation and also makes it clear that an appeal should....