Loading High Court cases…
713 orders · Page 7 of 15
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 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 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 Appellate Tribunal had not erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 4,84,75,000/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reasoning was based on the fact that the ITAT had previously granted relief to the assessee in contempt proceedings (ITA No. 1163/Ahd/2014) by dropping them. Furthermore, the Revenue's challenge to the ITAT's order in those contempt proceedings before the High Court in Tax Appeal No. 1225/2018 had been dismissed. Therefore, in light of the prior favourable orders for the assessee and the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal against those orders, the present appeal by the Revenue was also dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.
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 (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 merit in the assessee's contention that the Corporation had not followed the mandatory procedural requirements for levying property tax, as laid down in the GPMC Act and various judicial precedents. Specifically, the failure to issue general and special notices and prepare assessment books rendered the tax demand illegal. The Court also agreed that retrospective levy of municipal tax is impermissible. Regarding the payment of service charges to GIDC, the Court implicitly accepted the assessee's argument that demanding property tax for the same period constituted double taxation, especially in the absence of evidence that the JMC had taken over the maintenance responsibilities from GIDC. The Court noted that the relief concerning the declaration of GIDC Phase-II and Phase-III as notified areas was not pressed by the petitioner. The Court cautioned that the judgment should be read in light of the particular facts of the case, as per established principles of interpreting precedents.
The High Court held that there was no substantial question of law involved and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal, concurring with the CIT(A), deleted the penalty. The Tribunal found that the assessee had offered the total unaccounted income of Rs. 9.29 crores in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) during the search. The statement of Shri Karshanbhai M. Prajapati, a Director, clearly stated the manner of earning such undisclosed income from the construction business of the appellant company in the 'Swastik Universal' project. Therefore, the condition in Section 271AAA(2)(i) was satisfied. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had shown the surrendered income in the return and paid taxes, fulfilling another condition. Crucially, the Tribunal, following the Gujarat High Court's decision in CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah, held that the AO is obliged to specifically ask the assessee to explain the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived. Since no such specific question was asked to the Director during the Section 132(4) statement, the assessee could not be penalized. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing that the failure of the Revenue to elicit a response regarding the manner of deriving income during the Section 132(4) statement meant the consequential requirement of substantiating the manner could not be invoked against the assessee. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances made by the CIT(A) for both issues. Regarding the disallowance under Section 37(1), the Tribunal noted that the assessee's business involved designing, developing, financing, constructing, operating, and maintaining GIFT City. It found that the assessee had engaged specialized consultants for various studies, obtained necessary approvals, and issued Letters of Intent to contractors for construction and infrastructure development. The Tribunal, relying on the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Ltd., held that the business was set up during the year under consideration, as essential business activities had commenced. Consequently, the administrative expenses were allowed. For the second issue concerning depreciation under Section 32, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that since the business had commenced in AY 2012-13, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on plant and machinery, including office equipment, computers, and furniture used for business. The ratio decidendi is that business commences when the first essential activity precedes other activities, and once the business is set up, expenses incurred and depreciation on assets used are allowable.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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 held that the appeal filed by the Revenue fails and is dismissed. The Tribunal, in its impugned order, had concurred with the CIT(A)'s findings. The Tribunal observed that the AO initiated proceedings under Section 147 solely on the grounds of a retrospective insertion of clause (i) to Explanation 1 to Section 115-JB. The Tribunal, relying on decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Sadbhav Engineering Ltd. Vs. DCIT and Vodafone West Ltd Vs ACIT, held that a retrospective amendment to a law does not give rise to a failure to disclose material facts as contemplated in the first proviso to Section 147. The High Court found that the proposed question of law was squarely covered by these two decisions of the Gujarat High Court, which established that a retrospective amendment cannot be a ground for reassessment. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
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, 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 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 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.