THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VADODARA 2 vs. M/S SUN PHARCEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable as it is directed against an order passed in a Miscellaneous Application. The Court relied on its own previous decision in Saroj Ceramics Industries Versus Income-tax Officer. Therefore, the appeal was disposed of as not maintainable. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The specific relief sought by the revenue in the appeal was not decided on merits.
What were the facts?
The appellant, the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Vadodara, filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act against an order passed in a Miscellaneous Application. The respondent is M/s Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The revenue's counsel, Mr. Varun K. Patel, pointed out that the appeal was not maintainable as it was directed against an order in a Miscellaneous Application, citing the decision in Saroj Ceramics Industries Versus Income-tax Officer. Consequently, the revenue sought permission to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file an appropriate writ application.
What were the issues?
1. Whether an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act is maintainable against an order passed in a Miscellaneous Application? (Question of law) The revenue contended that the appeal is not maintainable as it is directed against an order passed in a Miscellaneous Application. The revenue relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Saroj Ceramics Industries Versus Income-tax Officer, reported in [2014] 42 taxmann.com 372 (Gujarat). The judgment does not record any contentions from the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)
At the outset, Mr.Varun K. Patel, the learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the revenue pointed out that this Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable as the same is directed against the order passed in Miscellaneous Application, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Saroj Ceramics Industries Versus Income-tax Officer, reported in [2014] 42 taxmann.com 372 (Gujarat). Mr.Patel, therefore, seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Appeal with a liberty to prefer appropriate writ application. C/TAXAP/169/2019 ORDER This Appeal is disposed of as not maintainable with liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (A. C. RAO, J) RAFIK..
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
