COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. 1-UP CLOTHING CO

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1382/2009HC GujaratGJHC24024180200921 December 2013Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.D.KOTHARI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the Tax Appeal. This decision was based on the principle that the jurisdiction to hear appeals lies with the High Court where the Assessing Officer's office is situated or where the assessee carries on business. Given that both the Assessing Officer and the assessee were located in Nani Daman, the appropriate High Court to entertain the appeal would be the Bombay High Court. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the preliminary ground of jurisdiction, without delving into the merits of the case. The appellant was granted liberty to prefer the appeal before the Bombay High Court.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed by the Revenue (Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad) against the judgment and order dated December 12, 2008, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No. 3352/AHD/2008 for Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessing Officer's office was situated at Nani Daman, and the respondent-assessee also carried out its business at Nani Daman. The High Court noted that the learned advocates for both parties were not in a position to dispute the jurisdictional aspect.

What were the issues?

1. Whether this High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present Tax Appeal, considering the location of the Assessing Officer and the assessee's business operations. The Revenue contended that the Gujarat High Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Assessee, while not explicitly recorded as making an argument, implicitly supported the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds by not disputing the High Court's lack of jurisdiction. The High Court relied on decisions from the Delhi High Court in Sheth Banarsi Pass Gupta vs. CIT, Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madanlal Co., and Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Motoroal India Limited to determine jurisdiction.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O/TAXAP/1382/2009 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL  NO. 1382 of 2009 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 ============================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX....Appellant(s) Versus 1­UP CLOTHING CO....Opponent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR. B.D.KARIA, LD. ADV FOR MR RK PATEL, 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 12.12.2008 passed in   ITA   No.3352/AHD/2008   for   AY   2005­06,   the   appellant­revenue Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad has preferred present Tax Appeal. O/TAXAP/1382/2009 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 →