COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. GALA POLY PLAST

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/1394/2010HC GujaratGJHC24027293201021 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 of Gujarat held that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the present Tax Appeal. This decision was based on the ratio laid down by the Delhi High Court in Sheth Banarsi Pass Gupta vs. CIT, the Karnataka High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madanlal Co., and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT vs. Motoroal India Limited. These judgments established that the appropriate High Court to hear the appeal would be the Bombay High Court, given the location of the assessee and the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without examining the merits of the case. The appellant was granted liberty 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 High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The appeal challenged an order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.1458/AHD/2009 for Assessment Year 2006-07. The assessee, Gala Poly Plast, conducts business at Nani Daman, and the Assessing Officer's office was also situated there. The High Court noted that the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal lay with the Bombay High Court, not the Gujarat High Court, based on precedents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court of Gujarat has the jurisdiction to entertain the Tax Appeal, considering the location of the assessee's business and the Assessing Officer's office. Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its learned advocate, did not dispute the contention that the Gujarat High Court lacked jurisdiction. The revenue implicitly accepted that the appeal should have been filed before the Bombay High Court, based on the cited High Court decisions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O/TAXAP/1394/2010 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL  NO. 1394 of 2010 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 GALA POLY PLAST....Opponent(s) ============================================= Appearance: MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK 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 18.12.2009 passed in   ITA   No.1458/AHD/2009   for   AY   2006­07,   the   appellant­revenue Commissioner of Income Tax, Valsad has preferred present Tax Appeal. O/TAXAP/1394/2010 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 →