Settled Precedent Trumps Revenue Appeal: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Revisit Bogus Purchase Disputes

In a significant move reinforcing judicial consistency regarding "bogus purchases," the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad recently dismissed a tax appeal filed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The bench, comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi, held that the core legal questions presented by the Revenue had already been resolved by previous rulings, leaving no room for further litigation on the matter.

The Conflict: Challenging the Tribunal’s Discretion

The dispute originated from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Surat, which had modified an order passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2011-12. While the Assessing Officer had sought to disallow 100% of the taxpayer’s allegedly "bogus" purchases—totaling over Rs 8.28 crore—the Tribunal restricted this disallowance to 6%.

The Revenue challenged this reduction in the High Court, pushing for a higher disallowance. However, the Court’s decision to intervene was curtailed by the existence of a robust body of established case law.

The Court’s Reasoning: Why Precedent Prevails

The High Court’s decision was largely predicated on the principle of stare decisis . The Revenue’s Counsel, Mr. Karan Sanghani, acknowledged that the proposed questions of law had already been addressed in a series of decisions, most notably Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Keshri Exports .

In Keshri Exports , and similarly in the case of M/s. Surya Impex , the court had already grappled with the issue of accommodation entries linked to the Bhanwarlal Jain group. The judiciary has consistently maintained that tax authorities are not entitled to tax the entire transaction amount of suspected bogus purchases. Instead, they must focus on the "income component" or the "benefit derived" by the taxpayer to prevent revenue leakage.

Key Observations from the Bench

The Court emphasized that when the Tribunal analyzes facts and figures to arrive at a reasonable disallowance percentage, interference is limited unless a substantial question of law remains unresolved.

• On the Limitation of Taxing Power: "It is settled law that under Income-tax, the tax authorities are not entitled to tax the entire transaction, but only the income component of the disputed transaction, to prevent the possibility of revenue leakage."
• On Judicial Consistency: "In view of the above, the substantial questions of law proposed by the appellant in this appeal stands already answered and therefore, no question of law much less any substantial questions of law can be said to have arisen in the facts of the present case."
• On Finality: "The view taken and the conclusion arrived at by the appellant Tribunal are based on material before it and after analysing the facts and figure available before it... No interference is called for in the said conclusion and findings of the Tribunal."

A Clear Signal to Tax Authorities

By dismissing the appeal, the Court has effectively signaled that tax litigation regarding "bogus purchases" should not be pursued in the High Court when the underlying disputes involve settled fact-finding by the Tribunal.

For taxpayers, this decision provides a layer of protection against unbridled 100% disallowances, which the courts have repeatedly identified as legally unsustainable. For the Revenue, it underscores the importance of adhering to higher court precedents rather than continuously litigating issues that have already been adjudicated in favor of reasonable, percentage-based estimates. The appeal stands dismissed, closing the door on this particular challenge to the ITAT's findings.