Gujarat High Court Judgments — 2019

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 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 (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 (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 (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 (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 held that a company, being a juristic person, is not entitled to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India and therefore cannot complain of a breach of such rights. Regarding the special audit, the Court found that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to various aspects of the assessee's accounts, including the nature and method of maintenance, and concluded that the accounts were complex. The Court was convinced that the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer was not an eyewash and that directing a special audit was in the interest of the Revenue. The Court stated it would be too much for the High Court to understand the complexity on behalf of the Assessing Officer and decided not to disturb the order passed under Section 142(2A). Consequently, the writ-application was rejected, and the interim relief granted was vacated.

The Tribunal held that the loss incurred in derivative transactions, which are excluded from speculative business under Section 43(5)(d) of the Act, cannot be treated as speculative loss for the purpose of set-off against business income under Section 73. The Tribunal found force in the assessee's argument, relying on the Calcutta High Court's decision in Asian Financial Services (supra), which held that once a transaction is deemed a normal business loss due to the proviso to Section 43(5), Section 73 or its explanation cannot be applied to refuse set-off. Consequently, the assessee's claim for set-off was allowed on this ground alone. Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the assessee's suo motu disallowance of Rs. 6.44 Lakhs against total expenses of Rs. 9.63 Lakhs was sufficient to cover possible expenses attributable to tax-exempt income of Rs. 6.13 Lakhs, especially given the substantial turnover of Rs. 406.59 Crores in taxable streams. The Tribunal held that the operation of Rule 8D is not automatic and Section 14A implies reasonableness, deeming the Revenue's action inexplicable. The addition of Rs. 5,09,728 was therefore cancelled. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal's findings and found no substantial question of law.

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue did not involve any substantial question of law. The Court noted that the ITAT had relied on the High Court's own decision in the case of PR CIT Vs. MGM Exports (Tax Appeal No. 309 of 2018, dated 11/04/2018). The ratio of that decision, applied by the ITAT, was that a person paying interest or any other sum to a non-resident is not liable to deduct tax if such sum is not chargeable to tax under the Act. The ITAT had concluded that the commission income in the hands of the foreign agent was not chargeable to tax in India, and consequently, the question of deducting TDS under Section 195 did not arise. Therefore, the High Court found no error in the ITAT's order and dismissed the appeal.

The High Court held that it did not find any substantial question of law involved in the appeal. The Court noted that the issue of whether the transactions were bogus or not could not be considered a pure question of fact, given the evidence on record. Since both the CIT(A) and the ITAT had recorded concurrent findings regarding the genuineness of the transactions, the High Court was disinclined to disturb these findings. The Court found it difficult to conclude that the findings were based on no evidence or were a misreading of evidence, which would render them perverse. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal. The ratio is that concurrent findings of fact by lower appellate authorities, if not perverse or based on no evidence, are generally not to be disturbed by the High Court in an appeal under Section 260A, especially when no substantial question of law arises.

The High Court held that the appeal filed by the Revenue fails and is dismissed. The Court reasoned that the language of Section 14A of the Act is plain and clear, requiring the Assessing Officer to indicate, based on the assessee's accounts, that they are not satisfied with the correctness of the assessee's claim regarding expenditure in relation to income not forming part of total income. This condition precedent of recording the requisite satisfaction, a safeguard in Section 14A, should not be overlooked before resorting to Rule 8D. The Court was not impressed by the Revenue's submission that once mixed funds are present, Rule 8D would be automatically attracted. The Court affirmed the ITAT's deletion of the disallowance, finding that the Supreme Court's decision in Maxopp Investment Limited does not fundamentally alter the understanding of Section 14A and Rule 8D, specifically that the requirement of the AO recording satisfaction remains. The disallowance of ₹1,58,31,847 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D was deleted.