GOA MINERALS PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS COMPANY SECRETARY MR. H. G. SHENOY vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ASSESSING OFFICER) AND ANR.

WP/616/2006HC BombayHCBM05003443200611 April 2017Bench: F. M. REIS,HON'BLE KUM. JUSTICE NUTAN D. SARDESSAI5 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa held that the impugned orders dated 24.03.2004, 23.03.2005, and 23.03.2006, passed by the revenue authorities, could no longer survive and deserved to be quashed and set aside. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Tax Appeal Nos. 26 of 2009 and 1 of 2010, filed by the respondents, which were related to the orders forming the basis of the impugned orders, had been dismissed. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the respondents did not raise any other contention to sustain the impugned orders. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders and made the Rule absolute. The petitions were disposed of accordingly. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Goa Minerals Pvt. Ltd., filed multiple writ petitions before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. These petitions challenged various orders passed by the Income Tax authorities, including the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The specific assessment years are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The core of the dispute revolved around impugned orders dated March 24, 2004, March 23, 2005, and March 23, 2006. The respondents, the revenue authorities, had filed Tax Appeal Nos. 26 of 2009 and 1 of 2010, which were subsequently dismissed. The revenue did not raise any other contention to sustain the impugned orders, as they were based on the orders that were the subject of the dismissed tax appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 24.03.2004, 23.03.2005, and 23.03.2006, passed by the revenue authorities, are sustainable in light of the dismissal of Tax Appeal Nos. 26 of 2009 and 1 of 2010 by the appellate forum. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that since the Tax Appeals filed by the respondents (revenue) challenging the orders on which the impugned orders were based, have been dismissed, the impugned orders themselves should be quashed and set aside. The petitioner relied on the principle that if the foundation of an order is invalidated, the consequential order also loses its validity. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (revenue) did not raise any contention to sustain the impugned orders. They conceded that the impugned orders were based on the orders that were the subject matter of the Tax Appeals filed by them, which were subsequently dismissed.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NOS. 559 OF 2004 & 48, 49, 613 & 616 OF 2006

WRIT PETITION NO.559 OF 2004 Goa Minerals Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at Salgaocar House, Off. F. L. Gomes Road, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa through its Company Secretary Mr. H. G. Shenoy. …. Petitioner V e r s u s 1. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, ( Assessing Officer ) Circle 2, Margao Goa. 2. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao Goa. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, having his office at Ayakar Bhavan, Patto, Panaji Goa. 4. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department, North Block Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi. ….. Respondents

:2: WITH WRIT PETITION NOS. 48 & 49 OF 2006 Goa Minerals Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at Salgaocar House, Off. Francisco Luis Gomes Road, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa through its Company Secretary Mr. H. G. Shenoy. …. Petitioner V e r s u s 1. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, ( Assessing Officer ) Circle 2, Margao Goa. 2. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao Goa. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, having his office at Ayakar Bhavan, Patto, Panaji Goa. 4. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department, North Block Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi. ….. Respondents

:3: WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 613 OF 2006 Goa Minerals Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at Salgaocar House, Off. Francisco Luis Gomes Road, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa through its Company Secretary Mr. H. G. Shenoy. …. Petitioner V e r s u s 1. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, ( Assessing Officer ) Circle 2, Margao Goa. 2. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao Goa. 3. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department, North Block, Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi …. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.616 OF 2006

Goa Minerals Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered Office at Salgaocar House, Off. Francisco Luis Gomes Road, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa through its Company Secretary Mr. H. G. Shenoy. …. Petitioner

:4: V e r s u s 1. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, ( Assessing Officer ) Circle 2, Margao Goa. 2. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Revenue Department, North Block Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi. ….. Respondents Mr. P. J. Pardiwalla, Senior Advocate with Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. A. Razaq, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- F. M. REIS & NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, JJ. Date:- 11th April, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per F. M. Reis, J ) After hearing the matter for some time, we find that it cannot be disputed that in view of the disposal of Tax Appeal Nos.26 of 2009 and 1 of 2010 which came to be dismissed, the impugned orders in the above writ petitions would no longer survive and deserve to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents did not raise any other

:5: contention to sustain the impugned orders as such orders were based on the orders which were the subject matter of the Tax Appeals filed by the respondents. Hence, the impugned orders dated 24.03.2004, 23.03.2005 and 23.03.2006 are quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly. NUTAN D. SARDESSAI, J. F. M. REIS, J. at*

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →