OM PRAKASH S/O SHRI MADAN LAL PRAJAPAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court considered the submission of the petitioner that the writ petition was filed due to the Appellate Tribunal not being functional. Since the Tribunal had become functional during the pendency of the writ petition, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal. The Court further directed that if the petitioner approaches the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of the order, the Tribunal shall decide the matter on its merits without considering the issue of limitation. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Om Prakash S/o Shri Madan Lal Prajapat, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petition was directed against the Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax, (Benami Transaction) and Initiating Officer under the Prevention of Benami Transaction Act, 2016, and other respondents including the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from the non-functional status of the Appellate Tribunal, which prevented him from pursuing his appeal. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Appellate Tribunal became functional.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to approach the Appellate Tribunal given that the Tribunal has become functional during the pendency of the writ petition? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was necessitated by the non-functional state of the Appellate Tribunal. Now that the Tribunal is functional, the petitioner sought liberty to pursue his remedies before it. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue side regarding the issues.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 04/12/2024
Heard.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the circumstances in which the writ petition had to be filed was that the Appellate Tribunal was not functional. However, during the pendency of this petition, the Tribunal has become
[2024:RJ-JP:49974-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1773/2020] functional, therefore, liberty may be granted to oppose before the Tribunal.
Considering the submission, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach before the Tribunal. Considering that the petitioner had to approach this Court as Tribunal itself was not functional, if the petitioner approaches the Tribunal within a period of 60 days, the Tribunal shall decide the matter on its own merits without going into the issue of limitation. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N. Gandhi/Upendra/53
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
