M/S ATLANTIC SHIPPING PVT. LTD v. INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 688 of 2024 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 707 of 2024 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6595 of 2025 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6539 of 2025

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

========================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No ========================================================== M/S ATLANTIC SHIPPING PVT. LTD.

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)

========================================================== Appearance:

MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI

Date : 15/10/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. B.S.Soparkar for the appellants and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the respondent-Department.

Page 1 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 2. Tax Appeals No. 688 of 2024 and 707 of 2024 are filed under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’] arising out of the Common Judgement and Order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot (for short ‘the Tribunal). Both the Tax Appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether on the facts and

circumstances of the case, the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has

erred in law and in facts in

holding that the benefit of

Article 8 of India-Singapore DTAA

to the profits derived from

operation of ships in

international traffic is subject

to the limitation in Article 24?”

Page 2 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 3. The appellants are Indian Companies engaged in business of Shipping Agency Services. The appellants provide shipping agency services to its principals including M/s. ST Shipping and Transport Pte. LTD (for short ‘the ST Shipping’). M/s. ST Shipping is incorporated in Singapore and is engaged in the business of operation of owned/chartered ships in international waters and is also a tax resident of Singapore.

3.1 During the Financial Year 2011-

12, the ships owned/chartered by the ST

Shipping performed various voyages from

Indian Ports including Sikka Port and

earned income from shippers/public

exporters.

Page 3 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 3.2 The ST Shipping through its agents- appellants herein filed vessel voyage return under section 172(3) of the Act for various vessels operating in Indian Territorial Waters and offered ‘Nil’ tax on the income by claiming tax benefit under Article 8 of India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement [‘DTAA’ for short].

3.3 The Assessing Officer called for

certain details like copy of freight

invoice and proof of remittance of

freight to the bank account of

beneficiary in Singapore. The Assessing

Officer on perusal of such details was

of the opinion that the amount had been

Page 4 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 remitted to bank account in London, United Kingdom and was not received or remitted in Singapore, hence, the appellants-assesses were held liable for tax invoking Article 24 of DTAA by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer disallowed claim of exemption made by the assessee under Article 8 of the DTAA. The Assessing Officer observed that as per Article 24 of DTAA between India and Singapore, funds have to be remitted to the country where the resident has claimed the benefit of DTAA whereas, in the facts of the case the freight beneficiary is ST Shipping and hence, the funds ought to have been remitted to Singapore and not to London, United Kingdom and hence, the Page 5 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 assesses were not entitled to claim the exemption as per Article 8 of the DTAA.

3.4 Being aggrieved, the appellants

preferred appeal before the

CIT(Appeals). During the appeal

proceedings, additional evidence was

sought to be filed in support of non-

applicability of Article 24 of the DTAA

being the certificate dated 09.01.2013

issued by Inland Revenue Authority of

Singapore [‘IRAS’ for short] to ST

Shipping confirming non-applicability

of the provisions of Article 24 of the

India and Singapore DTAA.

3.5 The CIT (A) therefore, sought

comments from the Assessing Officer and

Page 6 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 his views on the admissibility of the additional evidence filed by the appellants-assesses. After considering the remand report of the Assessing Officer and considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) refused to admit the additional evidence on the ground that though the time was granted to the assessee, no reply was filed and the assessee had failed to prove the circumstances which prevented them from furnishing information before the Assessing Officer.

3.6 On merits, the CIT(A) observed

that Article 24 of the DTAA would be

applicable in the facts of the case. It

was also observed by the CIT(A) that

Page 7 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 though the assesses were asked to bring on record whether funds have been received in Singapore or not, no details were furnished before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, CIT (A)

dismissed the appeal filed by the

appellants-assessee holding that the

exemption as per Article 8 of DTAA was

not available in view of expressed

language of Article 24 of the DTAA. The

appellants, therefore, preferred an

appeal before the Tribunal contending

that the assessee had earned freight

income by shipping goods to ports in

India and therefore, the benefit of

Article 8 of the DTAA is available vis-

à-vis Article 24 which contains two

conditions to be fulfilled so as to

Page 8 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 apply the same. It was also contended that both the conditions of Article 24 have not been satisfied in the facts of the case and therefore, the said Article would not be applicable.

3.7 The Tribunal, after considering

the submissions made by appellants-

assesses and the departmental

representative, held as under:

“9. We observe that some of the

case laws on which reliance is

sought to be placed are not

related to shipping companies

and hence does not involve

applicability of Article 8 in

relation to taxation of shipping

companies. Accordingly, in our

considered view, reliance cannot

be placed on those decisions

since the applicable treaty

provisions (Article 8) is

differently worded and have no

application with respect to

taxation of shipping companies.

Page 9 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 10. Secondly, in our considered view, we are unable to agree with the contention / arguments of the Counsel for the assessee on this point, because if the aforesaid interpretation were to be accepted, then this would imply that whenever a specific clause of tax treaty gives taxing rights to the country of residence, then by necessary implication Article 24 (Limitation of Relief clause)

will have no applicability. This

would effectively render Article

24 of the India Tax Treaty

otiose / redundant. The

limitation of relief clause has

been introduced primarily with a

view to ensure that the tax

treaty benefits are not abused /

misused and no benefit is

derived which was not intended

to be granted to a Contracting

State under the Tax Treaty.

Singapore has a territorial tax

system so that only income

sourced in Singapore is subject

to tax. Taxation of on foreign

sourced income (income earned

off-shore) by a Singapore

resident company is not subject

to tax unless the income is

received in Singapore or deemed

remitted to Singapore. The term

"received" in Singapore includes

Page 10 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 remitted to, transmitted to or brought into Singapore, used to satisfy any debt incurred in respect of a trade or business carried on in Singapore or used to purchase any movable property (such as equipment, raw material etc.) that is then brought into Singapore. Therefore, the limitation of relief clause has been introduced with the objective that in case "exemption from taxation in source country" has been claimed by the resident Singapore Company under the relevant Article under the India- Singapore Treaty DTAA, then it should not happen that such income is not remitted by the Singapore resident company to Singapore (which follows a territorial tax system) and such income is remitted to another country levying no tax or reduced tax on such foreign sourced income. This would result in the resident Singapore company claiming the benefit of double non-taxation (neither taxed in India, nor taxed in Singapore), which is not the intention under the India- Singapore Treaty and specifically, it is this unintended benefit, which is Page 11 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 sought to be curtailed by Article 24 of the India- Singapore Tax Treaty.

11. Article 8 of the India-

Singapore Tax Treaty (Shipping

and Air Transport) provides that

profit derived by enterprise of

Singapore shall be taxable only

in Singapore. Further, in our

view, Article 24 (Limitation of

Relief), while it states that

"this agreement provides that

income from sources in a

Contracting State shall be

exempted from tax". should be

read in a manner that such

income is exempted from "source

taxation" or "exempted from tax

in the source country" as this

would be a harmonious

interpretation of Article 8 read

with Article 24 of the India-

Singapore Tax Treaty. Notably,

even OECD commentary speaks of

exemption from "source taxation"

especially when discussing about

permanent establishment being

"exempted from tax in the source

DTAA speaks of those incomes,

which are exempted from "source

taxation", as well. This is for

the reason that profits derived

from operation of ships in

international traffic, should be

Page 12 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 normally subject to tax in the country of residence under Article 8. However, this is subject to the limitation in Article 24 that such profits are remitted to Singapore, which follows a territorial system of taxation wherein offshore income is taxed in Singapore on part that only which has been received or remitted in Singapore. Accordingly, in our considered view Article 8 of India-Singapore Tax Treaty exempts income earned by an enterprise from operation of ships in international traffic from "source taxation", subject to such profits being remitted / or received in Singapore which alone are taxable in Singapore.

Therefore, in our considered

view, looking into the instant

facts, the argument of the Ld.

Counsel for the assessee that

condition "one" has not been

satisfied in the instant facts

cannot be accepted, for this

would lead to Article 24 of the

India-Singapore DTAA as being

redundant / otiose and the non-

resident taxpayer getting

benefit of double non-taxation

of India sourced income, which

is clearly not intended under

the India-Singapore Tax Treaty.”

Page 13 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 3.8 With regard to other contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants- assesses regarding non-applicability of the Article 24 of the DTAA, the Tribunal relied upon the decision of this Court in case of M.T. Maersk Mikage vs. DIT (International Taxation)

reported in 390 ITR 427 and held as

under:

“19. In the aforesaid decision, it

may be observed that Gujarat High

Court has stated that vide this

letter, the Revenue Authority of

Singapore went on to opine that

Article 24.1 of DTAA would not be

applicable, however, the High

Court may not be fully guided by

this because this falls within the

realm of "interpretation" of

relevant clauses of the DTAA.

Secondly, the Gujarat High Court

further noted that in absence of

any rebuttal material produced by

Revenue, the Court would be guided

by the factual declaration made by

Page 14 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 the Singapore Authority considering the income is an income accruing or derived from business carried on in Singapore.

The High Court observed contents

of the certificate have not been

doubted by the Department /

Revenue therefore, this would

knock out the very basis of

invoking Article 24(1) of the

Treaty. Therefore, effectively,

the Gujarat High Court has made

the following observations:

Firstly, the certificate is in the

form of an opinion, which is in

the realm of interpretation of

relevant clauses of DTAA, and the

High Court cannot be guided by

such interpretation.

Secondly, since the Revenue has

not challenged or doubted the

certificate issued by the

Singapore Tax Authority, and had

not produced any rebuttal

material, the certificate has

knocked out the very basis of

applicability of Article 24(1) of

the DTAA.

20. However, for the impugned

assessment years, the factual

situation is different from the

Page 15 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 preceding assessment year which were before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, since the Ld. D.R. has challenged the veracity of the very certificate which was produced by the assessee for the first time during the course of appellate proceedings before Ld.

CIT(A). Therefore, in view of the

observations made by Gujarat High

Court, and the challenge by the

Ld. D.R. as to contents of the

certificate issued by Singapore

Tax Authority, it would be

pertinent to take a closer look at

the certificate issued by the

Singapore Tax Authorities and it's

applicability to the instant

facts.

21. As stated by us earlier,

Singapore follows a territorial

tax system so that only income

sourced in Singapore is taxed.

Taxation of foreign source income

(income earned offshore) by a

Singapore resident company is not

subject to tax, unless the income

is received in Singapore deemed

remitted to Singapore. The Counsel

for the assessee has submitted a

certificate which firstly states

that the charter income has been

derived by the assessee "from a

Page 16 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 business carried on in Singapore", and therefore, assessable to tax in Singapore on "accrual basis".

However, in our view, there are

certain factual inaccuracies in

the aforesaid certificate issued

by Singapore Tax Authorities.

Admittedly, in the instant case,

the assessee has been taken the

benefit of Article 8 of India-

Singapore Tax Treaty on the ground

that it has been deriving profits

from operation of ships in

international waters. It is an

admitted factual position that the

assessee has been operating in

international waters and earning

income from transportation

operations being carried out at

ports in India. Therefore, the

very basis of statement made in

the certificate that income

derived by the assessee is from

"business carried on in Singapore"

is questionable and it is not

clear to us as to on what basis,

this aforesaid statement has been

made in the certificate,

specifically when it is an

admitted fact that the assessee

has been earning foreign sourced

income from plying in

international waters. The

certificate has not given any

basis whatsoever as to how the

assessee is deriving income from

Page 17 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 "business carried on in Singapore", when admittedly, the assessee has been operating in international waters and taking benefit of Article 8 of the India Singapore Tax Treaty".

22. Secondly, as noted by Gujarat

High Court, the certificate is in

the form of our opinion, which has

no binding effect on the Court

since it relates to interpretation

of tax treaty provision. In the

instant facts, first after having

concluded that the assessee is

deriving income from business

carried out in Singapore", the

certificate goes on to state that

the income is therefore assessable

to tax in Singapore on "accrual

basis". The certificate has not

made reference to any specific

taxing provision under the

Singapore Tax Laws while coming to

the conclusion that assessee is

assessable to tax in Singapore on

"accrual basis". Apparently, the

assessee is deriving substantial

income from carrying out

substantial shipping activities

within the territorial waters of

India and is seeking to override

the limitation of relief provided

under the Treaty on the ground

that as per certificate, the

Page 18 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 assessee is carrying out operations in Singapore and hence is taxable in Singapore on "accrual basis". Therefore, since Article 24(1) limits the relief only with respect to income which is taxed in Singapore on remittance / receipt basis and has no applicability on income taxable in Singapore on "accrual basis", this certificate has the effect of ousting the applicability of the limitation of relief clause in the India-Singapore Tax Treaty.

However, as noted above, the

language of the certificate, as

also observed by Hon'ble Gujarat

High Court, is in the form of an

opinion, specifically aimed at

eclipsing the limitation of relief

clause, by stating that the

aforesaid income, which has been

derived by the assessee from

"business carried on in Singapore"

is assessable to tax in Singapore

on "accrual basis". However, the

certificate does not specify the

factual basis on which the

Singapore tax authority has come

to the conclusion that income from

shipping business have been

derived by the assessee from

"business carried on in

Singapore", when admittedly the

aforesaid income has been earned

by the assessee from

Page 19 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 transportation activities carried out at India ports. Secondly, there is no specific statutory provisions which has been mentioned in the letter which would lead to the conclusion that such shipping company derived from carrying out operations in international waters (more particularly Indian ports), would be taxable in Singapore on "accrual basis", specifically in light of the fact that Singapore has a territorial tax system so that only income sourced in Singapore is subject to tax on accrual basis and taxation of a foreign source income (income earned offshore) by Singapore resident company is not subject to tax unless the income is received in Singapore or deemed remitted to Singapore. However, despite substantial attempts, due to paucity of time, the Department was unable to obtain the necessary clarification from the Singapore Tax Authority on this issue as how it can be stated that firstly, assessee is carrying on "business in Singapore" and on what basis has the Singapore Tax Authorities came to the conclusion that assessee is taxable on "accrual basis". Further, even the Gujarat High Court has observed that this Page 20 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 certificate is in the form of opinion and has sought to knock out the very basis of the Assessing Officer and CIT for invoking Clause (1) of Article 24 of the DTAA. Therefore, in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court to the effect that in absence of any "doubt" as to contents of the certificate by the Indian Revenue Authorities, the Court is bound to accept the contents of the letter by IRAS as correct and the specific challenge to the contents of the certificate by the Revenue Authorities, both before passed Ld. CIT(A) as well as before us by Ld. D.R during the course of appellate proceedings, we are of the considered view that it is a fit case where the contents of the certificate required further verification, since effectively the entire revenue earned by shipping companies from operating in territorial waters of India is sought to be claimed as exempt from applicability of provisions of Clause (1) of Article 24 of India-Singapore DTAA, on the basis of the contents of this letter issued by the Singapore Tax Authorities. However, as noted above, from a reading of the letter issued by the Singapore Tax Page 21 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 Authorities, it is unclear to us as to how the income in question has been earned from a "business carried out in Singapore" and hence taxable on "accrual basis"

in Singapore. This question has

been raised by the Department both

as part of the order of CIT(A) (in

the remand report) and also before

us by the Ld. D.R. We also observe

that the letter issued by IRAS

does not refer to any statutory

provisions under the Singapore Tax

Laws and is more in the form of a

unilateral opinion/ declaration

that since the income has been

earned by the assessee on "accrual

basis", Article 24 of the DTAA

(Limitation of Relief Clause) will

have no applicability to the

assessee's set of facts. Since the

entire case of the assessee for

various assessment years under

consideration hinges on the

statement issued by the Singapore

Tax Authority and as noted by the

Gujarat High Court, the

certificate is merely in the form

of an opinion, in our considered

view, it is a fit case where the

basis of issuance of this

certificate needs to be looked

into in more detail, especially in

the absence of any statutory

provisions being cited in the

aforesaid certificate of as to how

Page 22 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 the assessee is taxable in Singapore on "accrual basis"

(especially when Singapore follows

a territorial tax system where

offshore income is taxable on

receipts / deemed remittance

basis) and on what basis the

Singapore Tax Authority has come

to the unequivocal conclusion that

income has been derived from

"business carried on in Singapore"

by the assessee.

23. In the result, the matter is

restored to the file of Assessing

Officer to verify the contents of

the aforesaid certificate and in

case, the Department is unable to

obtain any specific material to

rebut the contents of the

certificate issued by Singapore

Tax Authorities, then respectfully

following the decision of Gujarat

High Court in the assessee's own

case referred to above, relief may

be granted to the assessee, in

accordance with law.”

3.9 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid

order of the Tribunal remanding the

matter to the file of the Assessing

Page 23 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 Officer to verify the contents of the certificate issued by the IRAS, the appellants-assessee have therefore, preferred these Tax Appeals.

3.10 The Assessing Officer, on remand

of the matter by the Tribunal, passed

an Assessment Order dated 27.03.2025 on

merits ignoring the directions issued by

the Tribunal in Para 8.1 rebuttal to

point No. 5.

3.11 The appellants-assessee

therefore, challenged the assessment

order by preferring Special Civil

Applications No. 6595/2025 and 6539/2025

respectively.

Page 24 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 4. This Court passed the following order on 09.05.2025:

“1. Heard Learned Advocate Mr.

B.S. Soparkar for the Petitioner

and Learned Senior Standing

Counsel Mr. Varun Patel for the

Respondent on advance copy and Mr.

Kamlesh Makvana, CIT (IT&TP),

Ahmedabad through video conference

on behalf of the department.

2. Learned Advocate Mr. B.S.

Soparkar submitted that after the

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal

remanded the matter by order dated

21.03.2024 to the Assessing

Officer to verify the contents of

the certificate issued by the

Singapore Tax Authority and

further directed that in case the

department is unable to obtain any

specific material to rebut the

contents of the certificate issued

by the said Authority, then in

view of the decision of this court

in the assessee’s own case, relief

may be granted to the assessee, in

accordance with law.

3. It was submitted that in spite

of such clear direction, the

Page 25 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 Assessing Officer has passed the assessment order rejecting the contentions raised by the Petitioner which are similar to the case of the Petitioner in earlier years and has made the addition rejecting the claim of the Petitioner to get the tax relief as per article 8 of the India - Singapore Treaty by relying upon article 24 of the said Treaty under Section 172(4)

of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. Learned Advocate Mr. B.S.

Soparkar invited the attention of

the Court to the observation made

by the learned Assessing Officer

in para 8.1 in Rebuttal to Poin

No. 5, wherein, it is averred that

“Further, the Hon’ble ITAT has

not accepted or guaranteed the

TRC issued by the IRAS. The

observation of the ITAT

granting relief as per

Assessee’s own case decision of

Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.

Corresponding to this claim,

the Hon’ble ITAT ought to have

given the Vessel name and AY of

such orders. As far as the

Hon’ble High Court decision is

applicable only for M.T.

Mearsk, not for others. The

Page 26 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 assessee/agent case has not yet been decided by the Hon’ble High Court. The ITAT had erred in making such comments, i.e., assessee’s own case, nothing more.”

It was submitted that the

Assessing Officer could not have

made such an observation as the

order passed by the ITAT is

binding upon the Respondent.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel

Mr. Varun Patel for the Respondent

Authority, under instructions,

submitted that the contention

raised by the Petitioner is true

and the appropriate affidavit

shall be filed on behalf of the

Respondent if time is granted for

the same.

6. With regard to the merits of

the matter, it was submitted that

the Respondent shall also make

appropriate and suitable averments

in the Affidavit which may be

filed.

7. Considering the above

submission, issue notice,

returnable on 16.06.2025.

To be listed on top of the board.”

Page 27 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 5. As the issues involved in the Tax Appeals and the Special Civil Applications are common, the same were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this Common order.

6. Tax appeals are decided first as the

assessment order is consequence of the

order passed by the Tribunal on remand

of matters to the Assessing Officer.

7. It would, therefore, be germane to refer to the relevant Articles of DTAA to decide the Tax Appeals which read as follows:

“ARTICLE 2- Taxes Covered

1. The taxes to which this

Agreement shall apply are:

(a) In India:

Income Tax including any

Page 28 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 surcharge thereon (hereinafter referred to as “Indian tax”)

(b)In Singapore:

the Income-tax

(hereinafter referred to as

“Singapore tax”).”

“ARTICLE 3- General Definitions

(c) the terms “ a Contracting

State” and “the other Contracting

State” mean India or Singapore as

the context requires;”

“ARTICLE 8- Shipping and Air

Transport

1. Profits derived by an

enterprise of a Contracting State

from the operation of ships or

aircraft in international traffic

shall be taxable only in that

State.

2. The provisions of paragraph 1

shall also apply to profits form

the participation in a pool, a

joint business or an international

operating agency engaged in the

operation of ships or aircraft.

3. Interest on funds connected with

the operation of ships or aircraft

Page 29 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 in international traffic shall be regarded as profits derived from the operation of such ships or aircraft and the provisions of Article 11 shall not apply in relation to such interest.

4. For the purposes of this

article, profits from the

operation of ships or aircraft in

international traffic shall mean

profits derived from the

transportation by sea or air of

passengers, mail, livestock or

goods carried on by the owners or

lessees or charters of the ships

or aircraft, including profits

from:

(a) the sale of tickets for such

transportation on behalf of other

enterprises;

(b) the incidental lease of

ships or aircraft used in such

transportation;

(c) the use, maintenance or rental

or containers (including trailers

and related equipment for the

transport of containers) in

connection with such

transportation; and

Page 30 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 (d) any other activity directly connected with such transportation.”

“ARTICLE 24- Limitation of Relief

1. Where this Agreement provides

(with or without other conditions)

that income from sources in a

Contracting State shall be exempt

from tax, or taxed at a reduced

rate in that Contracting State and

under the laws in force in the

other Contracting State the said

income is subject to tax by

reference to the amount thereof

which is remitted to or received

in that other Contracting State

and not by reference to the full

amount thereof, then the exemption

or reduction of tax to be allowed

under this Agreement in the first

mentioned Contracting State shall

apply to so much of the income as

is remitted to or received in that

other Contracting State.

2. However, this limitation does

not apply to income derived by the

Government of a Contracting State

or any person approved by the

competent authority of that State

for the purpose of this paragraph.

Page 31 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 The term “Government” includes its agencies and statutory bodies.”

8. Learned advocate Mr. B.S.Soparkar for

the appellants submitted that on

perusal of Articles 8 and 24 of the

DTAA, only Article 8 would be

applicable in the facts of the case in

light of Clause (1) thereof which

provides that profit derived by the

appellant shall be taxable only in

Singapore.

8.1 It was submitted that Article

24 of the DTAA cannot be applied as

neither of the two conditions prescribed

therein are fulfilled. It was pointed

out that Condition No.1 of Article 24 of

DTAA stipulates that where DTAA provides

with or without other conditions that

Page 32 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 income from sources in a Contracting State shall be exempt from tax or taxed at a reduced rate in that Contracting State and Condition No. 2 provides that under the laws in force in the other Contracting State the said income is subject to tax by reference to amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then exemption or reduction of tax to be allowed under DTAA in the first- mentioned Contracting State shall apply to so much of income as is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State. It was submitted that both the conditions are required to be fulfilled whereas Condition No.2 is not fulfilled Page 33 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 because under the laws in force in Singapore i.e. other Contracting State, the said income is subject to tax on accrual basis and not by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in case of M.T.Maersk Mikage (supra).

8.2 It was further submitted

reliance placed by the Revenue on

section 10 of the Singapore Income Tax

Act which provides that income tax is

payable at the rate upon the income

specified for each assessment year upon

Page 34 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 the income of any person accruing in or derived from Singapore or received in Singapore from outside Singapore, cannot be relied as income is liable to be taxed in India as per the provisions of DTAA read with provisions of the Act.

8.3 It was therefore, submitted that

the shipping income of ST Shipping is

accruing in Singapore and therefore, the

same cannot be taxed in the hands of the

appellant under section 172 of the Act.

8.4 Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar

referred to the letter dated 09.01.2013

addressed to ST Shipping issued by the

IRAS wherein it is stated that charter

income derived by the ST Shipping to be

income accruing in or derived from

Page 35 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 business carried on in Singapore. It was submitted that this Court after taking into consideration such certificate/letter issued by the IRAS in case of M.T. Maersk Mikage (supra) held that Article 8 of DTAA would be applicable in the facts of the said case. It was submitted that facts of the appellants are similar and therefore, the Tribunal could not have restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the veracity of the certificate as the Department failed to bring on record any other document to dislodge the veracity of the certificate issued by IRAS.

Page 36 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 8.5 It was therefore, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have followed the decision of this Court instead of remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer.

8.6 Learned advocate Mr. Soparkar

also referred to and relied upon the

decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High

Court in case of Commissioner of Income

Tax IT-(2) vs. Citicorp Investment Bank

(Singapore) Ltd reported in [2023] 151

taxmann.com 501 (Bombay) to submit that

the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the

said case while considering the

applicability of Article 13(4) vis-à-vis

Article 24 has relied upon certificate

issued by Singapore authority certifying

Page 37 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 that the capital gain income would be brought to tax without reference to the amount remitted or received in Singapore. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Bombay High Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs.

APL Co. Pte Ltd reported in [2023] 156

taxmann.com 530 [Bombay] wherein,

similar question of applicability of

Article 8 vis-à-vis Article 24 is

considered and the decision of this

Court in case of M.T. Maersk Mikage

(supra) is followed by the Bombay High

Court by answering the questions of law

in favour of the assesses.

9. Per contra, learned Senior standing counsel Mr. Varun Patel submitted that Page 38 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 by impugned order, the Tribunal has only remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the veracity of the certificate issued by IRAS with a specific direction that if the Assessing Officer is unable to obtain any specific material to rebut the contents of the said certificate, the decision of this Court would be applicable and relief is to be granted to the appellants-assesses.

9.1 It was submitted that the

Tribunal has followed the decision of

this Court in case of M.T. Maersk Mikage

(supra) and only limited remand was made

to the Assessing Officer to verify the

contents of the certificate issued by

Page 39 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 IRAS. It was therefore, submitted that no question of law can be said to have arisen from the impugned order of the Tribunal.

9.2 On merits, learned counsel for

the Revenue submitted that the Assessing

Officer as well as CIT (A) have rightly

invoked Article 24 of the DTAA as the

appellants have diverted the funds to

London, United Kingdom instead of

Singapore and therefore, Condition No.2

of Article 24 of DTAA is not fulfilled.

It was submitted that the certificate

issued by the Singapore Tax Authority is

inconsistent with the provision of

section 10 of the Singapore Tax Act

which provides for taxing of income on

Page 40 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 accrual or received basis if it is not accrued within Singapore.

9.3 It was submitted that the

reliance placed by the petitioner on the

decision of M.T.Maersk Mikage (supra) is

not applicable in the facts of the case

because in the said case this Court,

after referring to the certificate dated

09.01.2013 issued by IRAS, has observed

in Para 18 that in the facts of the

case, Revenue did not question the

genuineness of the certificate and

therefore, it cannot dispute the

contention on the ground the same are

opposed to the statutory provision.

9.4 It was pointed out that before

the Tribunal, the departmental

Page 41 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 representative questioned the genuineness of the certificate and therefore, Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the certificate issued by the IRAS.

9.5 It was therefore, submitted that

the distinguishing feature in the facts

of the present case and the case before

this Court that correctness of the

certificate issued by IRAS is questioned

before the Tribunal by the Revenue

whereas, the same was not questioned

before this Court. It was therefore,

submitted that certificate issued by

IRAS was required to be verified and

therefore, the Tribunal was justified in

Page 42 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer. Reference was also made to the observation of the Tribunal in Para 22 in regard to the certificate that the letter issued by IRAS does not refer to any statutory provision under the Singapore Tax Laws and is more in the form of unilateral opinion/declaration that since the income has been earned by the ST Shipping on “accrual basis”, Article 24 of the DTAA will have no applicability.

9.6 It was also pointed out that this

Court has also observed in the decision

of M.T. Maersk Mikage (supra) that the

certificate issued by the Singapore Tax

Authority is merely in form of an

Page 43 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 opinion and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that it is a fit case where the basis of issuance of this certificate needs to be looked into in more detail in the absence of any statutory provision being cited in the certificate as to how the ST Shipping is taxable in Singapore on accrual basis more particularly, when Singapore follows a territorial tax system where offshore income is taxable on receipts/deemed remittance basis and on what basis, the Singapore Tax Authority has come to the conclusion that income has been derived from business carried on in Singapore by ST Shipping.

Page 44 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 9.7 It was therefore, submitted that in order to consider the veracity of the certificate dated 09.01.2013, the Tribunal has rightly restored the matter to the Assessing Officer and no substantial question of law would arise in a matter being remanded for verification of the certificate relied upon by the assessee.

10. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, the facts are not in dispute. The appellants are the Indian Companies engaged in the business of Shipping Agency Services and provided services to its principal M/s. ST Shipping which is incorporated in Singapore. M/s. ST Shipping is Page 45 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 engaged in the business of operation of its own ships or chartered ships in international waters. As per provision of section 172 of the Act, the appellants-assessee are liable to tax for charter income of the ships belonging to the M/s. ST Shipping which is a non-resident Indian company as such ships are used for operation at the ports in India. As per sub-section (2) of section 172 of the Act, where such ships carry passengers, livestock, mail or goods, shipped at a port in India, seven and a half percent of the amount paid or payable on account of such carriage to the owner or the charterer or to any person on his behalf, shall be deemed to be income Page 46 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 accruing in India to the owner or charterer on account of such carriage.

11. As per sub-section (3) of section 172 of the Act, a return is required to be filed before the departure from any port in India of any such ship, by the master of such ship regarding the amount paid or payable to the owner, a return of the full amount paid or payable to the owner or charterer or any person on his behalf, on account of operation of such ships at that port since the last arrival of such ship thereat. Sub-section (4) of section 172 of the Act stipulates the processing of such return by the Assessing Officer to assess the income referred to in sub- Page 47 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 section (2) and determine the sum payable as tax thereon at the rate or rates in force applicable to the total income of any company.

12. Accordingly, the appellants filed

return of income being agents of the ST

Shipping showing ‘Nil’ income in view

of the provision of Article 8 of DTAA.

The appellants relied upon the

certificate issued by the IRAS dated

09.01.2013 which reads as under:

“3. You have raised the

concern that the benefits

accorded under Article 8 of

the Singapore-India DTA to the

profits of your company were

limited by the provisions of

Article 24.1 of the said DTA

which state that any reliefs

provided by the DTA would only

apply to the amount of income

remitted into Singapore. As

such, the Indian tax

Page 48 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 authorities were likely to impose a tax on your company’s charter income.

4. Based on the information

provided in your letter, we

would consider the charter

income derived by your company

to be income accruing in or

derived from a business

carried on in Singapore and

the income is therefore

assessable to tax in Singapore

on an accrual basis. This

means the full amount of the

charter income is assessable

to tax in Singapore, and not

by reference to the amount

remitted to or received in

Singapore. Consequently, we

are of the view that Article

24.1of the Singapore-India DTA

is not applicable in this case

and the provisions of Article

8 would prevail. This being

the case, Article 24.2 would

not be applicable in the first

instance. For clarity, we

should add that Article 24.2

seeks to make clear that

Article 24.1 does not apply to

Government income.

Accordingly, Article 24.2 is

not relevant to income derived

by a taxpayer where the income

is assessable to tax in

Page 49 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 Singapore by reference to the amount remitted to or received in Singapore.”

13. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid certificate is considered by this Court while deciding similar issue of applicability of Article 8 vis-a-vis Article 24 in case of M.T.Maersk Mikage (supra) and after considering the submissions of both sides, it was held as under:

“15. This brings us to the core

issue strenuously debated by

both sides viz. that of

applicability of Article 8

visavis Article 24 of DTAA. We

may quickly refresh the facts.

ST Shipping is a company based

in Singapore. Through the

shipping business carried out at

Indian ports, ST Shipping earned

income, on which, it claims

immunity from Indian income tax.

The Revenue contends that the

remittance of such accrued

income not having taken place at

Page 50 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 Singapore, Article 24 will apply and consequently Article 8 providing for avoidance of table taxation would not apply.

16. The fact, that the income in

question which arises out of

shipping operations by virtue of

Clause 1 of Article 8 of the

DTAA would be taxable only in

Singapore, is not in serious

dispute. The moot question

therefore is whether operation

of Article 8 is ousted by virtue

of Clause1 of Article 24. As

noted, Article24 of DTAA

pertains to limitation of

relief. Under clause1 thereof

where the agreement provides

that the income from sources in

contracting states (in the

present case, India) shall be

exempt from tax or tax at a

reduced rate and under the laws

in force in other contracting

states (i.e. Singapore), such

income is subject to tax by

reference to the amount thereof

which is remitted or received in

that State and not by reference

to the full amount thereof then

the exemption or reduction of

tax under the agreement would be

limited to so much of the income

as is remitted to or received in

Page 51 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 that contracting State. In plain terms therefore, if the income in question was taxable in Singapore on the basis of receipt or remission and not by reference to the full amount of income accruing, clause1 of Article 24 would apply and dependent on the facts of the case, exemption as per Article 8 either in whole or in part would be excluded.

17. It is, in this context, that

the certificate dated 09.01.2013

issued by the Inland Revenue

Authority of Singapore assumes

significance. In the said

certificate, as noted, it was

certified that the income in

question derived by ST Shipping

would be considered as income

accruing in or derived from the

business carried on in Singapore

and such income therefore, would

be assessable in Singapore on

accrual basis. It was elaborated

that the full amount of income

would be assessable to tax in

Singapore not by reference to

the amount remitted to or

received in Singapore. In fact,

the certifying authority went on

to opine that in view of such

facts, Article 24.1 of the DTAA

Page 52 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 would not be applicable and consequently, Article 8 would apply.

18. To this later opinion of the

Revenue authority of Singapore,

we may not be fully guided since

it falls within the realm of

interpretation of the relevant

clauses of DTAA. However, in

absence of any rebuttal material

produced by the Revenue, we

would certainly be guided by the

factual declaration made by the

said authority in the said

certificate and this declaration

is that the income would be

charged at Singapore considering

it as an income accruing or

derived from business carried on

in Singapore. In other words,

the full income would be

assessable to tax on the basis

of accrual and not on the basis

of remittance. This certificate

was before the Commissioner

while he passed the impugned

order. The contents of this

certificate were not doubted. If

that be so, what emerges from

the record is that the income in

question would be assessable to

tax at Singapore on the basis of

accrual and not remittance. This

would knock out the very basis

Page 53 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 of the Assessing Officer and Commissioner for invoking clause1 of Article 24 of DTAA.

Both the authorities considered

the question of remittance of

income as the sole requirement

for invoking Article 24.1 of

DTAA an interpretation which

according to us does not flow

from the language used. As noted

the essence of Article 24.1 is

that in case certain income is

taxed by a contracting State not

on the basis of accrual, but on

the basis of remittance,

applicability of Article 8 would

be ousted to the extent such

income is not remitted. This

clause does not provide that in

every case of nonremittance of

income to the contracting state,

Article 8 would not apply

irrespective of tax treatment

such income is given. When in

the present case, we hold that

the income in question was not

taxable at Singapore on the

basis of remittance but on the

basis of accrual, the very basis

for applying clause1 of Article

24 would not survive. The

contention of Shri Mehta for

revenue that the certificate of

the Singapore revenue

authorities is opposed to

provisions of section 10 of the

Page 54 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 Singapore Income Tax Act also cannot be accepted. The Revenue does not question genuineness of the certificate. It cannot dispute the contention on the ground that the same are opposed to the statutory provision.”

14. The Tribunal has referred to and relied upon the above findings of this Court in relation to applicability of Article 8 of the DTAA. However, the Tribunal has ventured to distinguish the decision of this Court on the question of the veracity of the certificate dated 09.01.2013 on the ground that the genuineness of the said certificate was not questioned by the Revenue before this Court and hence, the Tribunal has thought is fit to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the contents of the said certificate with a Page 55 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 rider that in case the Assessing Officer is not able to obtain any specific material to rebut the contents of the certificate issued by the Singapore Tax Authority, then respectfully following the decision of this Court, relief was to be granted to the appellants.

15. When this Court has already considered the certificate dated 09.01.2013 and during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal for the year under consideration, the Revenue has not been able to bring any material on record or has challenged or doubted the certificate issued by the Singapore Tax Authority, as observed by the Tribunal Page 56 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 in Para 20 of the impugned order, it has noted that the Departmental Representative has challenged the veracity of the certificate issued by the IRAS during the course of the appellate proceedings before the CIT (A) and thereafter, the Tribunal has referred to the territorial tax system of the Singapore Income Tax Act to hold that the certificate has not given any basis whatsoever as to how the assessee is deriving income from “business carried on in Singapore”, when admittedly, the appellants-assessee have been operating in international waters. The Tribunal has also considered the fact that the certificate does not specify the Page 57 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 factual basis on which the Singapore Tax Authority has concluded that the income from shipping business have been derived by the assessee from “business carried on in Singapore”. Thus, in effect, the Tribunal has overreached the findings arrived at by this Court in case of M.T.Maersk Mikage (supra) in absence of any material brought on record by the Revenue before the Tribunal to show that the certificate issued by the IRAS is not reliable or cannot be considered for the income of ST Shipping to be taxed in Singapore on accrual basis.

16. It is also pertinent to note that from the documents placed in form of paper- Page 58 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 book filed before the Tribunal, in fact, the ST Shipping has shown the income arising from the operations as per letter dated 09.10.2012 issued by the Deloitte and Touche LLP, Certified Public Accountants, Sinagpore stating that the ST Shipping has confirmed that the position adopted in the Year of Assessment 2010 to treat charter income derived by the overseas branches as Singapore sourced income and part of qualifying income under Approved International Shipping Enterprise Incentive remains unchanged in the Year of Assessment 2012.

17. The impugned order of the Tribunal is, therefore, contrary to the decision of Page 59 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 this Court as the Tribunal could not have restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer only on mere suspicion and the doubts contrary to the findings arrived at by this Court regarding the same certificate dated 09.01.2013 issued by IRAS. The Tribunal ought not to have analysed the certificate in its order more particularly in Para 22 of the order in absence of any material on record. On perusal of Para 22 of the impugned order it is clear that the Tribunal has made the observation with regard to the language of the certificate more particularly, when this Court has accepted the part of the certificate which certified that the income earned Page 60 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 by the ST Shipping from the operations carried out in ports at India was liable to be taxed at Singapore on accrual basis and as per Article 8 of DTAA, when the income accrues in Singapore and was taxed as such, the same would be exempt from tax in India.

This Court has further clarified that

reference to Article 24 of DTAA in the

certificate is nothing but an opinion

of the IRAS.

18. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to have further deliberated upon contents of the certificate which is already held to be applicable in the facts of the case in absence of any other material on record to demonstrate that the Page 61 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 veracity of the certificate issued by IRAS is doubtful and merely because the Tribunal is of the opinion that the language of the certificate is not conducive to the opinion of the Tribunal, the matter could not have been restored to the Assessing Officer in face of the observation made by this Court regarding the same certificate dated 09.01.2013 issued by the IRAS.

19. Therefore, in view of the decision of this Court in case of M.T. Maersk Mikage (supra) and in view of the certificate dated 09.01.2013 issued by IRAS, the benefit of Article 8 of DTAA to the profits derived from the operation of ships in international Page 62 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 traffic at Indian Port would be governed by Article 8 and not Article 24 and the matter could not have been restored to the Assessing Officer to give a second inning to the Revenue to verify the certificate issued way back in 2013.

20. We are also fortified in our view because even after remand, the Assessing Officer has not been able to bring anything on record to show that the certificate dated 09.01.2013 referred to and relied upon by this Court in case of M.T.Maersk Mikage (supra) for the applicability of Article 8 is doubtful or not a genuine certificate. On the contrary, the Page 63 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 Assessing Officer, after remand, has even questioned the decision of the Tribunal as observed in our order dated 09.05.2025.

21. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought not to have restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify the veracity of the certificate dated 09.01.2013 and in view of the decision of M.T.Maersk Mikage (supra)

Article 8 would be applicable in the

facts of the case. The Tax Appeals are

accordingly allowed. The question of

law is answered in favour of the

assessee and against the Revenue.

22. The order of the Tribunal so far as it relates to restoring the matter to the Page 64 of 66 C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 file of the Assessing Officer is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that the appellants-assessee are entitled to the benefit of Articles 8 of the DTAA and Article 24 of the DTAA would not be applicable in the facts of the case.

23. We are not again analyzing Articles 8 and 24 of the DTAA as the same is already considered by this Court in case M.T.Maersk Mikage (supra) and we adopt the same reasoning for applicability of Article 8 of the DTAA in similar facts of this case.

24. With regard to Special Civil

Applications which are filed

challenging the assessment order passed

Page 65 of 66

C/TAXAP/688/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 by the Assessing Officer after remand, such assessment order would not survive in view of our decision in Tax Appeals as we have already quashed the order of remand passed by the Tribunal and hence, the assessment orders passed as consequence of such remand would therefore be rendered infructuous.

25. Special Civil Applications are

therefore, allowed. Assessment orders

are hereby quashed and set aside in

view of the decision rendered in Tax

Appeals No. 688 of 2024 and 707 of

2024.

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)

(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)

JYOTI V. JANI

Page 66 of 66

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.

Digitally signed by: JYOTIBEN VINODKUMAR JANI(HC00213), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/10/2025 18:11:44