THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 vs. M/S BAJAJ HERBALS PVT. LTD

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2659 OF 2022 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax­1 ..Appellant (S) Versus M/s. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent (S) J U D G M E N T M. R. Shah, J. 1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   impugned   order dated 01.10.2020/02.12.2020 (modification order) passed by the  Division  Bench of  the High  Court of  Gujarat at Ahmedabad in R/Tax Appeal No. 278 of 2020, by which the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the appellant herein – Revenue, the present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue. 2. As per the office report the respondent is served. From the office report, it appears that the respondent – assessee sent a letter to the Registry of this Court on 22.10.2021 to grant   an   adjournment   of   three   months.   The   time   was accordingly granted. Despite the same no one has filed 1 Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2022.04.07 16:17:59 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

vakalatnama   and   none   has   appeared   on   behalf   of   the respondent. Hence, service of notice on the respondent is complete. 3. By the impugned order the High Court has dismissed the said appeal simply by observing that none of the questions as   proposed   by   the   revenue   could   be   termed   as   the substantial   questions   of   law   and   all   the   questions proposed are on factual aspects of the matter. However, it is   required   to   be   noted   that   except   re­producing   the proposed questions of law, there is no further discussion on the factual matrix of the case. While issuing the notice, this Court passed the following order: ­ “Mr. Balbir Singh, learned ASG, has vehemently submitted that in the impugned order except narrating the proposed questions of law, there is no independent reasoning given by the High Court while dismissing the appeal except recording that “having gone through the   materials   on   record,   we   are   of   the   view   that   none   of   the questions   as   proposed   by   the   revenue   could   be   termed   as   the substantial   questions   of   law.   All   the   questions   proposed   are   on factual aspects of the matter”. Hence,   issue   notice   for   final   disposal   returnable   within   six weeks. Counter be filed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the notice. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.” 3.1 As the impugned order passed by the High Court is a non­ speaking and non­reasoned order and even the submissions 2

on behalf of the revenue are not recorded, the impugned order passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal is unsustainable. 3.2 Under   the   circumstances,   the   impugned   order   is   hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court   to   decide   and   dispose   of   the   appeal   afresh   in accordance  with  law  and  on  its  own merits.  If the   High Court is of the opinion that the proposed questions of law are not substantial questions of law and they are on factual aspects, it will be open for the High Court to consider the same in accordance with law, however, the High Court to pass   a   speaking   and   reasoned   order   after   recording   the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. 4. The present appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. …………………………………J. (M. R. SHAH) …………………………………J. (B.V. NAGARATHNA) New Delhi, April 07, 2022. 3