SONU DUSAD W/O NITIN DUSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/10189/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02051031202405 July 2024Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court noted that if the petitioner files an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, it would be considered sympathetically in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to endeavor to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Court did not decide on the merits of the underlying tax dispute, as the petition was withdrawn with liberty to pursue the appellate remedy.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sonu Dusad, through her Power of Attorney Holder, filed a Civil Writ Petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner sought relief concerning a dispute related to the service of notice and a draft order. The petitioner's counsel, after arguing for some time, sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appeal, stating that the limitation period for filing the appeal had expired. The petitioner also requested a time-bound decision from the Commissioner (Appeals).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) despite the expiry of the limitation period, considering the dispute regarding service of notice and draft order? (Question of mixed law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the limitation period for filing an appeal had expired and sought liberty to file an appeal. They also contended that there was a dispute regarding the service of notice and draft order, and requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter within a time-bound manner. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue side regarding the issues raised by the petitioner.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2024:RJ-JP:28043-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10189/2024 Sonu Dusad W/o Nitin Dusad, Aged About 47 Years, 8Th Floor, Tower 11, Celestial Heights, 80 Sheung Shing Street, Homantin, Kowloom, Hongkok Through Power Of Attorney Holder, Mrs. Prem Lata Dusad, W/o Bhagwan Das Dusad, R/o 4300, Nath Mal Ji Ka Chowk, Kgb Ka Rasta, Johri Bazaar, Jaipur-302003 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ito Wd 1(3), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dcit, Central Circle-1 Room No.408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur Rajasthan-302005 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Prakul Khurana with Mr.Rajat Sharma and Mr.Akshay Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Siddharth Bapna with Mr.Sarvesh Jain and Ms.Kriti Kalawatiya Mr.Meyhul Mittal Mr.Anuroop Singhi with Mr.Aditya Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order 05/07/2024

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing at some length is not pressing the petition with liberty to file appeal. The prayer made is that the limitation for filing appeal has expired. It is further submitted that there is a dispute with regard to service

[2024:RJ-JP:28043-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10189/2024] of notice and draft order and the CIT be directed for a time bound decision.

2.

The petition is disposed of, with the liberty as prayed for.

3.

There is no doubt in the eventuality of petitioner filing an appeal accompanied by the application for condonation of delay, the same would be considered in accordance with law, sympathetically.

4.

The Commissioner (Appeals) shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible in the facts of the case but not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

5.

The petition is disposed of accordingly. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/Aarzoo/15

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →