Gujarat High Court Judgments — 2019

The High Court held that the proposed substantial questions of law were no longer res integra, as they were directly covered by previous decisions of the same Court. Specifically, the Court referred to its own judgment in CIT vs. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. (395 ITR 247) and a Supreme Court decision in M/s. Alembic Ltd. The Court noted that in the Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. case, the issue of deduction under Section 80IA(4) concerning captive power generation plants and the rate to be considered for deduction was decided. The Tribunal's view, which was consistent with these precedents, was that the market value of electricity supplied by a captive power unit to a general unit should be the same as charged by GEB from consumers. The Court found that the ITAT's order was in line with these established principles. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

The High Court disposed of the Tax Appeal on the ground of low tax effect, without adjudicating on the merits of the admitted question of law. The admitted question concerned whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO after rejecting the assessee's books under Section 145 and estimating profit at 8%. The Revenue acknowledged that due to the low tax effect, the appeal did not warrant a detailed hearing on its substance. Therefore, no finding was reached on the legality or factual correctness of the ITAT's deletion of the addition or the estimation of profit. The operative direction was to dispose of the appeal on the stated ground.

The High Court held that the Tribunal had not committed any error of law in passing the impugned order. The Court reasoned that the legislative intent behind Sections 54 to 54GB is that the benefit of capital gains exemption is granted upon investment and adherence to a lock-in period. The Court found that if the new agricultural land, whether rural or urban, is transferred within three years of purchase, the tax exemption previously allowed on the sale of the original asset would be withdrawn. In such a scenario, the assessee is required to pay tax on the exemption claimed earlier. The Court clarified that when the new agricultural land is transferred within three years, the cost of acquisition of the first asset would be treated as Nil for the purpose of computing capital gain on the transfer of the new asset. The Court also dismissed the assessee's contention that the capital gain should be taxed in AY 2006-07, stating that the charge of capital gain is on the transfer effected on December 1, 2003, making AY 2004-05 the relevant year. The appeal was dismissed, with the question of law answered in favour of the revenue.

The High Court held that the question of law proposed by the Revenue was no longer res integra, meaning it had already been decided. The Court relied on its own previous decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Arvind Jewellers, reported in (2003) 259 ITR (Gujarat). Based on this precedent, the Court found no reason to interfere with the ITAT's order. Consequently, the Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. No specific finding on the merits of the Section 263 order itself was recorded, as the appeal was decided on the basis of the settled legal position.

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated under Section 153C read with Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were bad in law. The Tribunal found that the AO had not recorded any satisfaction regarding the belongingness of the seized documents to the assessee, either in the case of the searched person or the assessee. This lack of satisfaction was confirmed by the AO's admission that the satisfaction note was not traceable. The Tribunal relied on the Delhi High Court's decision in Pepsi Co. India Holding Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT and the Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in CIT v. Mechmen, which emphasize the mandatory requirement for the AO of the searched person to form a satisfaction that the seized items belong to a person other than the searched person. The Tribunal also referred to CBDT Circular No. 24/2015, which advises the Department not to press matters where satisfaction is not recorded. Consequently, the ITAT held the assessment to be illegal and void-ab-initio and allowed the grounds relating to the applicability of Section 153C. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's order.

The High Court held that the proposed questions of law were no longer res integra, being directly covered by its own previous decision in CIT vs. Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. (395 ITR 247) and a Supreme Court decision in M/s. Alembic Ltd. The Court noted that in the Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. case, the Tribunal had reversed the revenue authorities' orders, opining that the market value of electricity supplied by a captive power unit to a general unit would be the same as charged by GEB to its consumers. The High Court affirmed that the deduction under Section 80IA should be based on the market value of the electricity supplied, which, in this context, was determined to be the rate at which GEB supplied power to its customers. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court dismissed the Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court's decision was based on its order dictated in a related Tax Appeal, being Tax Appeal No. 498 of 2019. While the specific reasoning of the ITAT that led to the deletion of the penalty is not detailed in this High Court order, the High Court's dismissal implies that it found no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT's order. Therefore, the operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal, meaning the ITAT's order deleting the penalty stood. No issue was expressly left undecided by the High Court.

The Tribunal held that the dividend income was received in FY 2012-13 on 16.10.2012, as evident from the bank statement. However, this receipt did not fall within the financial year ending 31.03.2012, and therefore, was not liable to be taxed in AY 2012-13. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had declared dividend income pertaining to AY 2012-13 in AY 2013-14, which was accepted by the Revenue. Furthermore, the AO had erred in treating an amount in Sri Lankan currency from a dividend warrant as dividend income for the year under consideration. The Tribunal concluded that the addition made by the AO was without any basis and documentary evidence. Consequently, the addition was directed to be deleted. The ratio decidendi is that dividend income is taxable in the year of receipt, and if not received in the relevant financial year, it cannot be taxed in that assessment year. The AO also erred in currency conversion for the dividend warrant.

The High Court, following the decision of a coordinate bench in a batch of similar writ applications, allowed the petitions. The court held that writ applications challenging notices under Section 153C are maintainable. Regarding the applicability of the amended Section 153C, the court found that the amendment, effective from 01.06.2015, was prospective and would not apply to searches initiated before that date, as applying it retrospectively would affect substantive rights. On the issue of limitation, the court held that the existence of an alternative period of limitation under the statute meant the notices were not barred simply because the initial period had elapsed. Crucially, concerning the relevant assessment years under Section 153A, the court determined that the six assessment years preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year of the search are to be considered. For a search on 04.09.2013, the relevant assessment years were 2013-14 to 2008-09. Notices issued for assessment years beyond this six-year period were held to be without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned notices under Section 153C and any consequential assessment orders were quashed and set aside.

The High Court found that the proposed question of law was more on facts than on law. The Court did not find any error, let alone an error of law, in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision to delete the disallowance of preliminary expenses was upheld. The reasoning is that the Court found no substantial question of law to interfere with the Tribunal's factual findings. The ratio decidendi is that if a proposed question of law is predominantly factual and the Tribunal's order is found to be free from legal error, the High Court will not interfere under Section 260A. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.

The High Court held that the order of the Appellate Tribunal was not sustainable in law. The Court found that registration under Section 12AA is a prerequisite for obtaining approval under Section 80G. The Court reasoned that Section 12AA deals with the genuineness of the trust's activities, which is a foundational requirement before considering benefits like income exclusion under Sections 11, 12, or 10(23C), and consequently, before granting approval under Section 80G. The Court referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in M.K. Nambyar Saarf Law Charitable Trust v. Union of India, emphasizing that the Commissioner must be satisfied about the genuineness of the trust's activities before registering it under Section 12AA. The Tax Appeal was allowed, and the ITAT's order was quashed. The Court clarified that the assessee could still apply for registration under Section 12AA and, if successful, then apply for 80G approval.

The High Court held that the appeal was substantially on facts rather than a question of law. Regarding the first issue, the Tribunal noted that a portion of the preliminary expenses (Rs 11,11,226) was never disallowed in earlier years, and another portion (Rs 9,00,161) was allowed by the CIT(A) for AY 2008-09 and 2010-11. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's ground and dismissed it. For the second issue, the AO disallowed interest on advances to M/s Red Event India Pvt. Ltd., treating them as interest-free and for non-business purposes. The Tribunal's findings on this are detailed in the judgment. The third issue was squarely covered by a previous decision of the High Court in Tax Appeal No. 238/2019. The High Court found no error, let alone an error of law, in the impugned order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court held that the writ applicant had not made out a case for declaring the summons illegal or erroneous. It was permissible for the authority concerned to secure and enforce the personal attendance of the assessee/defaulter for necessary inquiry pursuant to a summons under Rule 83 of the Second Schedule. For effective and expeditious disposal of recovery proceedings, it is always permissible for the Tax Recovery Officer to call for necessary and relevant information and conduct an inquiry by securing and enforcing the personal attendance of the assessee/defaulter. The Court clarified that the assessee could be accompanied by his legal representative or chartered accountant, and the TRO should permit this. The Court also emphasized that there should be no unnecessary harassment, wait, or detention for the assessee, while the assessee remains duty-bound to cooperate and furnish necessary details. The summons was upheld.

The High Court, without entering into the merits of the case, accepted the petitioner's request. It directed that the petitioner could file a fresh application for registration as a Valuer under Section 34-AB of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. This fresh application was to be considered without reference to the earlier decision of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-III. The Court further directed that a decision on the fresh application should be taken expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. The petition was disposed of with these directions, and the Court explicitly stated that it had not entered into the merits of the case.

The High Court held that proviso (ii) of the opening paragraph of Notification No. 05/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, as inserted by Notification No. 20/2018-C.T. (Rate) dated July 26, 2018, is ex-facie invalid and liable to be struck down. The Court reasoned that the power conferred upon the Central Government under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act is limited to notifying goods and services that are not entitled to a refund of accumulated ITC on account of an inverted rate structure. The Act itself provides for the lapsing of ITC under specific sections (17(4) and 18(4)), indicating that such a provision would be expressly stated if intended. The Court found no inherent power in Section 54(3) to provide for the lapsing of unutilized ITC. Therefore, the notification, by prescribing the lapsing of ITC, exceeded the delegated power granted by Section 54(3)(ii). The members of the writ applicants have a vested right to the unutilized ITC. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The High Court held that proviso (ii) of the opening paragraph of Notification No. 5/2017-C.T. (Rate) dated June 28, 2017, as inserted by Notification No. 20/2018-C.T. (Rate) dated July 26, 2018, is ex-facie invalid and liable to be struck down. The Court reasoned that Section 54(3) of the CGST Act empowers the government to notify goods and services in respect of which refund of unutilized input tax credit (ITC) shall not be allowed where the tax on inputs is higher than the tax on output supplies. However, it does not confer power to provide for the lapsing of such accumulated ITC. The Court noted that the CGST Act itself contains specific provisions (Sections 17(4) and 18(4)) for the lapsing of ITC, indicating that such a consequence is expressly legislated when intended. The impugned notification, by prescribing for the lapsing of ITC, exceeded the delegated power granted under Section 54(3)(ii). The Court found that the members of the writ applicants have a vested right to the unutilized ITC accumulated due to the inverted rate structure. Therefore, the notification was struck down as being without authority of law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the petitioner, being a British citizen and not an Indian citizen, is not eligible for admission to government seats. The Gujarat Professional Medical Educational Educational Courses (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fees) Rules, 2017, as amended, specifically require candidates seeking admission to government seats to be citizens of India and either born in Gujarat or domiciled in Gujarat. While the Ministry of Home Affairs Notification dated 11.4.2005 grants OCI cardholders parity with NRIs in certain fields, this parity does not override the specific eligibility criteria laid down in the admission rules for government seats. The proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 2017, which deals with NRI seats, operates within its own field and cannot be used to nullify the clear requirement of Indian citizenship for government seats. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the respondent committee's decision to consider the petitioner's case for NRI seats only, as she did not meet the criteria for government seats. The petition was therefore dismissed.

The High Court held that the Tribunal had not committed any error of law or fact in its findings. The Court noted that the matter was substantially on facts, and there was no significant question of law. The High Court observed that there were concurrent findings of fact recorded by two revenue authorities (CIT(A) and ITAT) against the Revenue. Therefore, the High Court was not inclined to disturb these findings. The ITAT, in its order, had relied on its co-ordinate bench's decision for AY 2010-12 and also appreciated the CIT(A)'s method of taking the GP ratio of AY 2014-15 (4.65%) as a standard to compute GP addition, which resulted in a deletion of Rs. 1,79,12,777/- and confirmation of an addition of Rs. 5,25,667/-. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court held that the Tribunal had not committed any error of law or fact in passing its order. The Court found that the matter was substantially on facts, with little to no question of law involved. The Court noted that there were concurrent findings of fact recorded by two revenue authorities (CIT(A) and Tribunal) against the Revenue. Therefore, the High Court was not inclined to disturb these findings. The Tribunal, in its order, had considered the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2010-12. While the CIT(A) initially deleted the addition based on the principle of non-applicability of res-judicata, the Tribunal acknowledged the confirmation of that appellate order by a Co-ordinate Bench. The Tribunal also appreciated the CIT(A)'s rational method of using the GP ratio of the latest profitable year (AY 2014-15 at 4.65%) to compute the addition, which resulted in an addition of Rs. 5,25,667/- for AY 2012-13, thereby deleting the bulk of the AO's addition. The High Court dismissed the appeal.

The High Court held that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal was just and proper and needed no interference. The Court reasoned that the concept of business has evolved to include care and concern for society and the local community. The assessee, being a polluting company and a government undertaking, was conscious of its social obligations and obliged to ensure protective principles of State policy. The expenditures incurred for various CSR activities could not be regarded as outside the ambit of the business concerns of the assessee. The Court emphasized that the test should be that of a practical and prudent businessman, focusing on commercial expediency rather than a strict classification by the Revenue. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Panipat Woollen & General Mills Co. Ltd., the Court stated that the commercial expediency must be determined from a businessman's point of view and that expenses incurred to promote or increase commercial activity amount to expenditure for the purpose of business. The Court found the line between revenue and capital expenditure to be thin and that each case must be decided on its facts. Therefore, the ITAT's decision to allow the deduction was upheld.

The High Court held that the ITAT's order was not perverse. The court found no merit in the assessee's contention that a fresh notice under Section 274 was required. It reasoned that the correction from Section 271AAA to Section 271AAB via a corrigendum was a rectification of a human error to enforce the correct provision and was within the AO's statutory competence, especially since Section 271AAA and Section 271AAB are similar in nature, differing primarily in the date range for searches. The court noted that the penalty order was passed with the approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, fulfilling the requirement under Section 274(2). The court also clarified that no prior approval of a superior authority is shown to be needed for the mere initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB, unlike proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the subsequent notice under Section 271AAB was not marred by any substantive irregularity. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court held that the Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the assessee's appeal. The Court found that there was substantial evidence on record indicating the assessee was involved in the business of hiring cranes. While the assessee might also use the cranes for its own construction business, this did not disentitle it from claiming higher depreciation if it was indeed in the business of hiring cranes. The Court distinguished the present case from Pradip N. Desai (HUF) by emphasizing the evidence of the assessee being in the business of hiring. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous, and the substantial question of law was answered in favour of the assessee. The impugned order of the ITAT was quashed and set aside.

The High Court held that Section 14(2) of the Arms Act, 1959, clearly states that a Licensing Authority shall not refuse to grant a license merely on the ground that the applicant does not own or possess sufficient property. The Court observed that the District Magistrate had considered the appellant's Income Tax Returns, which relates to income. While acknowledging that granting an arms license is discretionary, the Court emphasized that such discretion must be exercised in accordance with the law, specifically construing the provisions of Section 14(2) properly. Consequently, the Court quashed all the orders passed and remitted the application for the license back to the District Magistrate, Bhavnagar, to rehear the appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that this order should not be treated as a precedent as it was passed in peculiar facts and circumstances.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the Corporation had not followed the mandatory procedures required for levying property tax, specifically the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and supported by various judicial precedents. The Court also held that the retrospective levy of municipal tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the applicants' contention that the JMC could not demand property tax for periods during which service charges were paid to GIDC, as this constituted double taxation and there was no evidence of JMC taking over maintenance services. The Court noted that the applicants did not press certain reliefs related to the declaration of GIDC areas as notified areas. The Court cautioned that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, as per established legal principles regarding the application of judicial pronouncements.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the JMC had not followed the mandatory procedures for levying property tax, including the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as required by the GPMC Act. The Court also held that retrospective levy of municipal tax is impermissible. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC, and the JMC could not demand property tax for the period during which these service charges were paid, as this would constitute double taxation. The Court emphasized that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing the principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC). The Court found that the JMC had failed to follow the mandatory procedures required for the levy of property tax, specifically mentioning the absence of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and its associated rules. The Court also noted that the retrospective levy of tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of double taxation, acknowledging that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the double taxation aspect beyond the procedural and retrospective levy issues, it implicitly supports the applicants' claim by quashing the JMC's demand. The Court clarified that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore. One writ application (SCA No. 7181 of 2018) was partly allowed to the extent that the tax bills were quashed.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the JMC had not followed the mandatory procedures for levying property tax, including the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as required by the GPMC Act. The Court also held that retrospective levy of municipal tax is impermissible. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC, and the JMC could not demand property tax for the period during which these service charges were paid, as this would constitute double taxation. The Court emphasized that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing the principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the Corporation had not followed the mandatory procedures required for levying property tax, as outlined in the GPMC Act and supported by various judicial precedents. Specifically, the absence of issuance of general and special notices and the non-preparation of assessment books were critical procedural lapses. The Court also held that retrospective levy of municipal tax is impermissible. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the issue of double taxation arising from the payment of service charges to GIDC and the subsequent demand for property tax by the JMC, especially in the absence of evidence that JMC had taken over the maintenance of services. The Court clarified that the judgment would operate in personem, not in rem, referencing the principles laid down in Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the JMC had not followed the mandatory procedures for levying property tax, including the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as required by the GPMC Act. The Court also held that retrospective levy of municipal tax is impermissible. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC, and the JMC could not demand property tax for the period during which these service charges were paid, as this would constitute double taxation. The Court emphasized that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing the principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the JMC had not followed the mandatory procedures for levying property tax, including the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as required by the GPMC Act. The Court also held that retrospective levy of municipal tax is impermissible. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC, and the JMC could not demand property tax for the period during which these service charges were paid, as this would constitute double taxation. The Court emphasized that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing the principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the JMC had not followed the mandatory procedures for levying property tax, including the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as required by the GPMC Act. The Court also held that retrospective levy of municipal tax is impermissible. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC, and the JMC could not demand property tax for the period during which these service charges were paid, as this would constitute double taxation. The Court emphasized that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing the principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the JMC had not followed the mandatory procedures for levying property tax, including the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as required by the GPMC Act. The Court also held that retrospective levy of municipal tax is impermissible. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC, and the JMC could not demand property tax for the period during which these service charges were paid, as this would constitute double taxation. The Court emphasized that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing the principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC). The Court found that the JMC had failed to follow the mandatory procedures required for the levy of property tax, specifically mentioning the absence of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and its associated rules. The Court also noted that the retrospective levy of tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of double taxation, acknowledging that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the double taxation aspect beyond the procedural and retrospective levy issues, it implicitly supports the applicants' claim by quashing the JMC's demand. The Court clarified that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore. One writ application (SCA No. 7181 of 2018) was partly allowed to the extent that the tax bills were quashed.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the Corporation had not followed the mandatory procedures required for levying property tax, specifically the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and supported by various judicial precedents. The Court also held that the retrospective levy of municipal tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the applicants' contention that the JMC could not demand property tax for periods during which service charges were paid to GIDC, as this constituted double taxation and there was no evidence of JMC taking over maintenance services. The Court noted that the applicants did not press certain reliefs related to the declaration of GIDC areas as notified areas. The Court cautioned that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, as per established legal principles regarding the application of judicial pronouncements.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the JMC had not followed the mandatory procedures for levying property tax, including the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as required by the GPMC Act. The Court also held that retrospective levy of municipal tax is impermissible. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC, and the JMC could not demand property tax for the period during which these service charges were paid, as this would constitute double taxation. The Court emphasized that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing the principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC). The Court found that the JMC had failed to follow the mandatory procedures required for the levy of property tax, specifically mentioning the absence of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and its associated rules. The Court also noted that the retrospective levy of tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of double taxation, acknowledging that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the double taxation aspect beyond the procedural and retrospective levy issues, it implicitly supports the applicants' claim by quashing the JMC's demand. The Court clarified that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore. One writ application (SCA No. 7181 of 2018) was partly allowed to the extent that the tax bills were quashed.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC). The Court found that the JMC had failed to follow the mandatory procedures required for the levy of property tax, specifically mentioning the absence of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and its associated rules. The Court also noted that the retrospective levy of tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of double taxation, acknowledging that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the double taxation aspect beyond the procedural and retrospective levy issues, it implicitly supports the applicants' claim by quashing the JMC's demand. The Court clarified that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore. One writ application (SCA No. 7181 of 2018) was partly allowed to the extent that the tax bills were quashed.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC). The Court found that the JMC had failed to follow the mandatory procedures required for the levy of property tax, specifically mentioning the absence of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and its associated rules. The Court also noted that the retrospective levy of tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of double taxation, acknowledging that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the double taxation aspect beyond the procedural and retrospective levy issues, it implicitly supports the applicants' claim by quashing the JMC's demand. The Court clarified that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore. One writ application (SCA No. 7181 of 2018) was partly allowed to the extent that the tax bills were quashed.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC). The Court found that the JMC had failed to follow the mandatory procedures required for the levy of property tax, specifically mentioning the absence of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and its associated rules. The Court also noted that the retrospective levy of tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of double taxation, acknowledging that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the double taxation aspect beyond the procedural and retrospective levy issues, it implicitly supports the applicants' claim by quashing the JMC's demand. The Court clarified that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore. One writ application (SCA No. 7181 of 2018) was partly allowed to the extent that the tax bills were quashed.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC). The Court found that the JMC had failed to follow the mandatory procedures required for the levy of property tax, specifically mentioning the absence of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and its associated rules. The Court also noted that the retrospective levy of tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of double taxation, acknowledging that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the double taxation aspect beyond the procedural and retrospective levy issues, it implicitly supports the applicants' claim by quashing the JMC's demand. The Court clarified that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore. One writ application (SCA No. 7181 of 2018) was partly allowed to the extent that the tax bills were quashed.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the Corporation had not followed the mandatory procedures required for levying property tax, specifically the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and supported by various judicial precedents. The Court also held that the retrospective levy of municipal tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the applicants' contention that the JMC could not demand property tax for periods during which service charges were paid to GIDC, as this constituted double taxation and there was no evidence of JMC taking over maintenance services. The Court noted that the applicants did not press certain reliefs related to the declaration of GIDC areas as notified areas. The Court cautioned that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, as per established legal principles regarding the application of judicial pronouncements.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the Corporation had not followed the mandatory procedures required for levying property tax, specifically the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and supported by various judicial precedents. The Court also held that the retrospective levy of municipal tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the applicants' contention that the JMC could not demand property tax for periods during which service charges were paid to GIDC, as this constituted double taxation and there was no evidence of JMC taking over maintenance services. The Court noted that the applicants did not press certain reliefs related to the declaration of GIDC areas as notified areas. The Court cautioned that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, as per established legal principles regarding the application of judicial pronouncements.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the Corporation had not followed the mandatory procedures required for levying property tax, specifically the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and supported by various judicial precedents. The Court also held that the retrospective levy of municipal tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the applicants' contention that the JMC could not demand property tax for periods during which service charges were paid to GIDC, as this constituted double taxation and there was no evidence of JMC taking over maintenance services. The Court noted that the applicants did not press certain reliefs related to the declaration of GIDC areas as notified areas. The Court cautioned that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, as per established legal principles regarding the application of judicial pronouncements.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the JMC had not followed the mandatory procedures for levying property tax, including the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as required by the GPMC Act. The Court also held that retrospective levy of municipal tax is impermissible. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC, and the JMC could not demand property tax for the period during which these service charges were paid, as this would constitute double taxation. The Court emphasized that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing the principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore.

The High Court held that the Tribunal committed no error in passing the impugned order. It affirmed the settled law that a notice for reassessment under Section 148 cannot be issued while assessment proceedings based on a filed return are pending, citing Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam's Supplemental Family Trust v. Commissioner of Income-Tax. The Court reiterated that if assessment proceedings (original or reassessment) are pending, a Section 148 notice cannot be issued. The High Court found that Section 142(1) and Section 148 of the Act cannot operate simultaneously, as per the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, I, Bombay v. M/s.Narsee Nagsee and Co. Bombay. The Court reasoned that issuing a Section 148 notice when Section 142(1) proceedings are pending is absurd and bad in law, as income cannot be said to have escaped assessment when proceedings are already underway. Section 124(3)(b) was held not to save the situation as it pertains to jurisdiction, not the illegality of issuing a notice during pending proceedings. The assessment order was quashed by the ITAT, and no other grounds were adjudicated on merit.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC). The Court found that the JMC had failed to follow the mandatory procedures required for the levy of property tax, specifically mentioning the absence of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and its associated rules. The Court also noted that the retrospective levy of tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of double taxation, acknowledging that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the double taxation aspect beyond the procedural and retrospective levy issues, it implicitly supports the applicants' claim by quashing the JMC's demand. The Court clarified that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore. One writ application (SCA No. 7181 of 2018) was partly allowed to the extent that the tax bills were quashed.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation. The Court found that the JMC had not followed the mandatory procedures for levying property tax, including the issuance of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as required by the GPMC Act. The Court also held that retrospective levy of municipal tax is impermissible. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC, and the JMC could not demand property tax for the period during which these service charges were paid, as this would constitute double taxation. The Court emphasized that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing the principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC). The Court found that the JMC had failed to follow the mandatory procedures required for the levy of property tax, specifically mentioning the absence of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and its associated rules. The Court also noted that the retrospective levy of tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of double taxation, acknowledging that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the double taxation aspect beyond the procedural and retrospective levy issues, it implicitly supports the applicants' claim by quashing the JMC's demand. The Court clarified that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore. One writ application (SCA No. 7181 of 2018) was partly allowed to the extent that the tax bills were quashed.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC). The Court found that the JMC had failed to follow the mandatory procedures required for the levy of property tax, specifically mentioning the absence of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and its associated rules. The Court also noted that the retrospective levy of tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of double taxation, acknowledging that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the double taxation aspect beyond the procedural and retrospective levy issues, it implicitly supports the applicants' claim by quashing the JMC's demand. The Court clarified that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore. One writ application (SCA No. 7181 of 2018) was partly allowed to the extent that the tax bills were quashed.

The High Court allowed the writ applications, quashing and setting aside the impugned property tax bills issued by the Jamnagar Municipal Corporation (JMC). The Court found that the JMC had failed to follow the mandatory procedures required for the levy of property tax, specifically mentioning the absence of general and special notices and the preparation of assessment books, as mandated by the GPMC Act and its associated rules. The Court also noted that the retrospective levy of tax was impermissible. Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of double taxation, acknowledging that the plot holders had paid service charges to GIDC. While the judgment does not explicitly detail the reasoning for the double taxation aspect beyond the procedural and retrospective levy issues, it implicitly supports the applicants' claim by quashing the JMC's demand. The Court clarified that the judgment operates in personem, not in rem, citing principles from Quinn v. Leathern and Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Commr. of Income-tax Lahore. One writ application (SCA No. 7181 of 2018) was partly allowed to the extent that the tax bills were quashed.