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
Comments
Post a Comment