SUBHASH PARETA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/9485/2019HC RajasthanRJHC02047109201910 February 2025Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

These two writ petitions, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3333/2020 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9485/2019, involve similar facts and are being decided together. The petitioner in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3333/2020 is aggrieved by an order dated 07.02.2020, which directed the deposit of 20% of the demand created. Interim protection was granted to the petitioner on 27.02.2020. The court noted that the appeal had not been decided for over four years despite the interim protection. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

Held

The High Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petitions. It took into account the interim protection granted to the petitioner since 2020 and the fact that the appeal had not been decided for over four years. The court directed the first Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The interim protection granted to the petitioner was extended to continue until the appeal is heard. The ratio decidendi is that prolonged delays in appellate proceedings, coupled with existing interim orders, warrant a directive for expeditious disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority.

Key Issues

The primary issue is whether the writ petitions should be disposed of, considering the delay in the decision of the appeal by the first appellate authority and the existing interim protection in favor of the petitioner. The court needs to decide on the appropriate course of action to ensure timely resolution of the appeal. The petitioner's contention is that the appeal has been pending for an inordinate period, and the interim protection should continue until the appeal is decided. The revenue's contention, though not explicitly recorded, would likely be to uphold the demand or seek a different procedural outcome. The court is not deciding the merits of the underlying tax dispute.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:5781-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3333/2020 Shiv Kumar Soni S/o Shri Naval Kumar Soni, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of 348, Mangla Marg, Brahmpuri, Jaipur 302002. ----Petitioner Versus

1.

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Having Its Office At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur

2.

Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9485/2019 Subhash Pareta, Prop. M/s. Pareta Associates, Having Its Address At House No. 3/148, Ganesh Talab, Kota In The State Of Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1.

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kota Having Its Office At Central Revenue Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota

2.

Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota Having Its Office At Central Revenue Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota

3.

Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi Through Its Chairman ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apeksha Bapna with Mr. Rohan Chatter for Mr. Siddha

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →