DHANUBEN KALANBHAI MANCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-2
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the challenge to the impugned order failed. The Court found that the factual position clearly indicated that Mutation Entry No. 8058, made and certified in 2011, was based on a factually erroneous premise. The land in question already stood in the name of the Income-tax Department. Since the Income-tax Department was the owner of the land, the mutation of an heirship entry (Entry No. 8058) was out of question. The cancellation of this entry by the revenue authorities was therefore justified and rightly done. The impugned order, in light of these facts and circumstances, did not contain any error. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. No issues were expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The petitioners challenged an order dated January 31, 2017, passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, which dismissed their Revision Application No. 14 of 2014. This order confirmed the Collector, Valsad's order dated December 20, 2013, which cancelled Mutation Entry No. 8058. This entry pertained to lands in Village Sari, Taluka Umargam, originally in the name of Kalyanbhai Morarbhai. The entry was mutated in 2011 to reflect his heirs after his death. However, the Deputy Collector initiated a review as the land was encumbered and held by the Income-tax Department. The Collector cancelled Entry No. 8058, noting that the land was attached for dues of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Income-tax Department, auctioned, and awarded to the Income-tax Office, Vapi, Ward-2, at the upset price due to no bids.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a Special Civil Application challenging an order passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, confirming the cancellation of a mutation entry, when the revenue authorities have found the entry to be based on a factually erroneous premise. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners, through their advocate Mr. Jatin Yadav, sought to challenge the impugned order. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the petitioners. Revenue's Contention: The learned Assistant Government Pleader, Mr. Manan Mehta, took the Court through the orders of the Collector and the revisional authority. He highlighted that the land was already encumbered and held by the Income-tax Department prior to the disputed mutation entry, having been awarded to the Income-tax Office, Vapi, Ward-2, at the upset price due to a lack of bidders in an auction. This factual position was conveyed by the Income-tax Department to the revenue authorities via letters dated March 18, 1997, and April 27, 2006.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER Heard learned advocate Mr.Jatin Yadav for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manan Mehta for the respondent – State and its authorities appearing upon service of copy of the petition in advance.
The challenge is sought to be lodged by the petitioners against order dated 31st January, 2017 passed by the Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department, Ahmedabad, passed in Revision Application No.14 of 2014, whereby the said revisional authority dismissed the Revision Application and confirmed the order of Collector, Valsad, dated 20th December, 2013. 3. The dispute which was before the revenue authorities was in relation to Mutation Entry No.8058. The said Entry was mutated in respect of C/SCA/7345/2018 ORDER lands bearing Survey Nos.149/4, 150, 154/1, 154/2, 154/3 and 155/2 at Village Sari, Taluka Umargam, which was in the name of one Kalyanbhai Morarbhai in his Account No.558. It appears that the said Entry No.8058 came to be mutated upon death of said Kalyanbhai and the name of heirs were entered which was subsequently certified by the Circle Officer on 17th October, 2011.
1 However, it further appears that Deputy Collector noticed that the said land was already encumbered and was held by the Income-tax Department. Therefore, he made a proposal to take the said Entry in review. The Collector responded to the proposal, passed order dated 20th December, 2013 to cancel the Entry No.8058. Against the said cancellation, petitioner filed Revision Application culminating into the impugned order.
As learned Assistant Government Pleader took the Court through the order of the Collector which is confirmed by the revisional authority, the contents thereof based on the record of the case, clearly mentioned that prior to the impugned Mutation Entry, Entry No.7503 was mutated. The land in question was attached with encumbrance in the nature of dues to the tune of Rs.05.00 lakhs payable to the Income-tax Department. At the relevant time, the land was put to auction, and upset price was fixed at Rs.05.00 lakhs. Order of the Collector as well as the order of the revisional authority noticed and recorded the fact that in the auction proceedings since nobody turned C/SCA/7345/2018 ORDER up to submit a bid, Income-tax Office, Vapi, Ward-2, was given the land at the upset price. The Income-tax Department conveyed this fact to the revenue authorities by letters dated 18th March, 1997 and 27th April, 2006. 5. In view of the above factual position, it clearly transpires that Mutation Entry No.8058 which was made and certified in the year 2011, was founded on factually erroneous premise in asmuch as the land already stood in the name of the Income-tax Department. The Income-tax Department being the owner of the land, mutation of heirship Entry No.8058 was out of question, which was rightly cancelled by the revenue authorities. The impugned order, in the facts and circumstances, did not book any error. The challenge fails. Petition is dismissed. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) Anup
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
