/2022 INSC 0263/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2659 OF 2022
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax­1      ..Appellant (S)
Versus
M/s. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd.                   ..Respondent (S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   impugned   order
dated   01.10.2020/02.12.2020   (modification   order)   passed
by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Gujarat   at
Ahmedabad   in   R/Tax   Appeal   No.   278   of   2020,   by   which
the High Court has dismissed the said appeal preferred by
the   appellant   herein   –   Revenue,   the   present   appeal   has
been preferred by the Revenue. 
2. As per the office report the respondent is served. From the
office   report,   it   appears   that   the   respondent   –   assessee
sent a letter to the Registry of this Court on 22.10.2021 to
grant   an   adjournment   of   three   months.   The   time   was
accordingly   granted.   Despite   the   same   no   one   has   filed
1

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

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