R S E B JAIPUR vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/6497/1998HC RajasthanRJHC02007918199820 September 2023Author: AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that since the petitioner had brought to its notice a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) and Anr. (Civil Appeal No.8590/2010), which dealt with identical questions of fact and law including assessment years, and the respondents' counsel could not dispute this fact, the present writ petition should be disposed of in the same terms as the Supreme Court judgment. The reasoning is based on the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the Supreme Court judgment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajasthan State Electricity Board, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur challenging an order or action by the Income Tax Department. The assessment years are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the petitioner bringing to the court's notice a Supreme Court judgment concerning identical questions of fact and law, including assessment years, in a case involving the same petitioner. The respondents' counsel could not dispute this fact.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present writ petition, involving identical questions of fact and law including assessment years as decided by the Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment) and Anr. (Civil Appeal No.8590/2010), should be disposed of in terms of that judgment? (Question of law and fact, turning on the principle of res judicata or judicial precedent). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court judgment in their favor, covering identical issues and assessment years, should be applied to the present case. Revenue's Contention: The respondents' counsel was unable to dispute the fact that the Supreme Court judgment covered the present case, implying no argument against the petitioner's submission.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2023:RJ-JP:24059-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6497/1998 Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Vidyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, (Assessment) Special Range-II, Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. N.K. Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S. Bhati HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order 20/09/2023

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case No.8590/2010) decided on 19.03.2020 which covers the issue involved in the present case on all forces in favour of the petitioner.

2.

Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to dispute the said fact.

[2023:RJ-JP:24059-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-6497/1998]

3.

In the light of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of in same terms as in Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur (supra). (SAMEER JAIN),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ AKG/RAJAT/1

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →