The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax­1 vs M/s. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax­1  vs M/s. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd. 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2659 OF 2022

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax­1      ..Appellant (S)

Versus

M/s. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd.                   ..Respondent (S)

J U D G M E N T 

M. R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   impugned   order

dated 01.10.2020/02.12.2020 (modification order) passed

by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at

Ahmedabad in R/Tax Appeal No. 278 of 2020, by which

the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by

the appellant herein – Revenue, the present appeal has

been preferred by the Revenue. 

2. As per the office report the respondent is served. From the

office report, it appears that the respondent – assessee

sent a letter to the Registry of this Court on 22.10.2021 to

grant   an   adjournment   of   three   months.   The   time   was

accordingly granted. Despite the same no one has filed

1

vakalatnama   and   none   has   appeared   on   behalf   of   the

respondent. Hence, service of notice on the respondent is

complete. 

3. By the impugned order the High Court has dismissed the

said appeal simply by observing that none of the questions

as   proposed   by   the   revenue   could   be   termed   as   the

substantial   questions   of   law   and   all   the   questions

proposed are on factual aspects of the matter. However, it

is   required   to   be   noted   that   except   re­producing   the

proposed questions of law, there is no further discussion

on the factual matrix of the case. While issuing the notice,

this Court passed the following order: ­ 

“Mr. Balbir Singh, learned ASG, has vehemently submitted that

in the impugned order except narrating the proposed questions of

law, there is no independent reasoning given by the High Court while

dismissing the appeal except recording that “having gone through

the   materials   on   record,   we   are   of   the   view   that   none   of   the

questions   as   proposed   by   the   revenue   could   be   termed   as   the

substantial   questions   of   law.   All   the   questions   proposed   are   on

factual aspects of the matter”. 

Hence,   issue   notice   for   final   disposal   returnable   within   six

weeks.

Counter be filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the

notice. 

Dasti, in addition, is permitted.”    

3.1 As the impugned order passed by the High Court is a nonspeaking and non­reasoned order and even the submissions

2

on behalf of the revenue are not recorded, the impugned

order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal is

unsustainable. 

3.2 Under  the  circumstances,  the  impugned   order  is   hereby

quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the High

Court   to   decide   and   dispose   of   the   appeal   afresh   in

accordance with law and on its own merits. If the High

Court is of the opinion that the proposed questions of law

are not substantial questions of law and they are on factual

aspects, it will be open for the High Court to consider the

same in accordance with law, however, the High Court to

pass   a   speaking   and   reasoned   order   after   recording   the

submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. 

4. The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No

costs.     

…………………………………J.

                (M. R. SHAH)

…………………………………J.

 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)

New Delhi, 

April 07, 2022.

3