THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. B S PANWAR (INDL.)

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1378/2008HC GujaratGJHC24025733200821 December 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Gujarat High Court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Tax Appeal. This decision was based on the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court, Karnataka High Court, and Punjab and Hariyana High Court in the cited cases, which indicated that the appropriate High Court to entertain the appeal would be the Bombay High Court, given the location of the Assessing Officer and the assessee's business at Nani Daman. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without entering into the merits of the case. Liberty was granted to the appellant to prefer an appeal before the Bombay High Court.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad (appellant-revenue) filed a Tax Appeal before the Gujarat High Court challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated August 17, 2007, in ITA No. 1136/AHD/2002 for Assessment Year 1999-00. The Assessing Officer's office was located at Nani Daman, and the respondent-assessee also carried out business at Nani Daman. The appeal was filed against the ITAT's order, but the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court was questioned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Gujarat High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present Tax Appeal, considering the location of the Assessing Officer and the assessee's business at Nani Daman? (Question of law) The appellant-revenue contended that the Gujarat High Court has jurisdiction. The respondent-assessee did not dispute the jurisdiction issue. The High Court considered decisions from the Delhi High Court in Sheth Banarsi Pass Gupta vs. CIT, Delhi (Central), the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madanlal Co., and the Punjab and Hariyana High Court in CIT vs. Motoroal India Limited.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O/TAXAP/1378/2008 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL  NO. 1378 of 2008 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:  HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH sd/­ and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI sd/­ ============================================= 1. Whether   Reporters   of   Local   Papers   may   be  allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy  of the judgment ? NO 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question  of law as to the interpretation of the constitution  of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ============================================= THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus B S PANWAR (INDL.)....Opponent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MRS SWATI SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI  Date : 21/12/2013

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)

1.0.

Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Income   Tax   Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “ITAT”) dated 17.08.2007 passed in   ITA   No.1136/AHD/2002   for   AY   1999­00,   the   appellant­revenue Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad has preferred present Tax Appeal. O/TAXAP/1378/2008 JUDGMENT

2.0.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that admittedly the office of the Assessing Officer was situated at Nani Daman and even the respondent­assessee is also carrying out the business at Nani Daman. entering into the merits of the case and / or expressing anything on merits on the ground that against the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT, this Court would not have any juri iction. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the appellant to prefer appeal before the appropriate High Court i.e. in the present case Bombay High Court and as and when such proceedings are initiated, the same be considered in accordance with law and on   merits. With this, present appeal is dismissed. ­ (M.R.SHAH, J.) ­ (R.D.KOTHARI, J.) Kaushik

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →