Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeals in Commissioner of Commercial Tax & Ors. v. Vikaram Cement because the disputed liability of ₹25,47,448 was below the ₹2 crore Supreme Court threshold in CBIC Circular No. 207/01/2024-GST. The Court held that the monetary-limit policy applied to pending appeals before it, but did not decide the underlying limitation question. That issue remains open for another appropriate case.
What the Supreme Court decided
In its 5 February 2026 order in Civil Appeal No. 710/2012 and a connected appeal, the Supreme Court applied the CBIC circular’s monetary limit and dismissed the State’s appeals. The Court rejected the State’s argument that the appeals survived under section 174(2)(f) of the CGST Act’s repeal-and-savings provision and that the GST circular did not apply. It reasoned that the direction not to pursue appeals below the limit covered pending appeals as well.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Court expressly left the underlying question of law undecided: “We make it explicitly clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the question of law that has been raised and it is kept open to be urged in any other appropriate case.” The dismissal was on the monetary-limit ground, not a ruling on whether the reassessment was legally time-barred.
What was the Vikaram Cement dispute about?
The case arose from an assessment under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, for the period 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988—not from a GST assessment. The case text recounts an additional demand of ₹41,062 in March 1991, followed by reassessment proceedings and an assessment of ₹25,47,448 in December 1998. Vikaram Cement challenged the later reassessment as time-barred, and the High Court accepted that position. These are background facts reported in the case text; the Supreme Court’s 2026 order did not decide the limitation issue.
#1 Best Overall
The GST connection arose later: the State’s appeals were subject to CBIC’s departmental litigation policy. The Court stated that the circular’s condition made clear that “even in respect of pending appeals relating to CGST, SGST/UTGST, IGST and Compensation Cess, the monetary limit fixed would be applicable.” Read the case text on Indian Kanoon.
What are the CBIC GST appeal monetary limits?
CBIC Circular No. 207/01/2024-GST, dated 26 June 2024, sets these limits for departmental appeals, applications and special leave petitions. They are not limits on a taxpayer’s right to appeal.
Rank #2
| Forum | Departmental monetary limit |
|---|---|
| GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) | ₹20 lakh |
| High Court | ₹1 crore |
| Supreme Court | ₹2 crore |
For the State’s Supreme Court appeals in Vikaram Cement, the relevant comparison was ₹25,47,448 against the ₹2 crore threshold. The amount was below the limit. Read CBIC Circular No. 207/01/2024-GST.
How does the circular calculate the amount in dispute?
The applicable calculation depends on what the dispute concerns. For a tax demand, the circular counts the aggregate disputed tax across CGST, SGST/UTGST, IGST and Compensation Cess, including cases where interest or penalty is also disputed. It also sets out separate treatment for interest-only, penalty-only, late-fee-only and erroneous-refund matters. If a composite order disposes of more than one appeal or demand notice, the relevant amounts are aggregated.
So the headline threshold alone does not settle every case: the forum, the kind of amount in dispute, any aggregation requirement and any applicable exception all matter.
When can the department appeal below the limits?
The circular identifies exceptions in which the decision whether to appeal is to be made on the merits regardless of the amount. These include specified rulings that provisions are ultra vires; recurring matters or matters requiring interpretation; cases involving adverse strictures or costs against the government or its officers; and other cases the Board considers necessary to contest in the interest of justice or revenue.
The available account of the Vikaram Cement order does not establish that an exception was litigated or decided there. The circular also cautions that an appeal should not be filed merely because the disputed tax exceeds the threshold: the merits still matter.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Does dismissal for low tax effect decide the legal issue?
No. The Supreme Court left the limitation question open, and the circular says that cases not appealed because they fall below the monetary limit “shall not have any precedent value.” It also says that such non-filing does not imply departmental acquiescence and does not prevent an appeal in another case involving a similar issue. The dismissal therefore should not be read as the department accepting the High Court’s legal reasoning on reassessment limitation.
Sources and scope
The case text is hosted by Indian Kanoon and reproduces the proceedings and order; the CBIC circular is dated 26 June 2024. The circular date is sometimes rendered inconsistently in the case text, so the date here follows the official circular. The case spelling “Vikaram Cement” is retained as used in the case text.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
