Ishwari Prasad Shrivastav vs. Income Tax Circle Katni

WP/14088/2026HC Madhya Pradesh25 May 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN2 pages

For Petitioner: Siddharth Shukla[P-1]

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, without entering into the merits of the rival contentions, directed Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) to consider the reply/objection submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P/6 within 30 days of receiving a copy of the order. The Court clarified that this direction was solely to decide the petitioner's objection in response to the demand notice and did not grant liberty to file an appeal against the original assessment orders dated 11.07.2012 and 20.04.2011, nor did it extend any limitation period for challenging those orders. The ratio decidendi is that authorities must consider objections filed against recovery notices, even if the underlying demand is old, but this does not automatically revive time-barred appeals or grant new rights to challenge original assessments.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ishwari Prasad Shrivastav, has filed a writ petition challenging a recovery notice dated 25.09.2025 for outstanding demands of Rs. 81,030 for assessment year 2011-2012 and Rs. 2,87,800 for assessment year 2010-2011. The petitioner claims to have filed a detailed reply/objection to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Katni, on 13.10.2025, but no action has been taken on it. The respondents contend that the demands are based on finalized orders from 2011 and 2012, against which no appeal was filed, and recovery is now being pursued. The petitioner reiterates that the assessment was finalized at the relevant time.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent authorities have failed to consider the reply/objection submitted by the petitioner against the demand notice, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the procedural fairness and consideration of objections). Assessee's contention: The petitioner argues that despite submitting a detailed reply/objection (Annexure P/6) to the demand notice (Annexure P/5) on 13.10.2025, the respondent authorities have not taken any note of it, implying a failure to consider the objection. Revenue's contention: The revenue submits that the demands are based on finalized orders from 2011 and 2012, for which no appeal was filed, and therefore, only recovery is being made. The revenue's stance implicitly suggests that the petitioner's objection might not warrant a stay of recovery or a re-opening of finalized assessments, but it does not explicitly address the failure to consider the objection itself.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI ON THE 25th OF MAY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 14088 of 2026 ISHWARI PRASAD SHRIVASTAV Versus INCOME TAX CIRCLE KATNI AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Siddharth Shukla - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta - Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. ORDER Per: Justice Vivek Jain By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned notice of recovery of outstanding demand vide Annexure P/5 dated 25.09.2025 by which he has been asked to pay an amount of Rs.81,030/- for outstanding demand of the assessment year 2011-2012 and Rs.2,87,800/- for outstanding demand of the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already filed a detailed reply/objection to the said demand notice to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Katni vide Annexure P/6 which has been submitted before the said authority on 13.10.2025 but the said authority has not any taken note of the said reply/objection till date. 1 WP-14088-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:40361 Signed by: PARITOSH KUMAR Signing time: 25-05-2026 21:20:10 Signature Not Verified

(VIVEK JAIN) V. JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR NIRANKARI) V. JUDGE 3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the demand is for certain orders issued in the years 2011 and 2012 which was not honoured by the petitioner nor any appeal was filed against the said orders and therefore, now only recovery is being made of the demand which stood finalized. 4. On the other hand, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has submitted his objection vide Annexure P/6 contending that the assessment got final at the relevant point of time. 5. Be that as it may, without entering into the merits of rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.2 to consider the reply/objection submitted by the petitioner vide Annexure P/6 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the said authority. 6. We further make it clear that we have simply directed to decide the reply/objection filed by the petitioner in reply to the aforesaid demand notice Annexure P/5 dated 25.09.2025 and we have neither granted liberty to file appeal against, nor extended the limitation for challenging the orders dated 11.07.2012 and 20.04.2011 in any manner. 7. In the above terms, the petition stands disposed of. PK

2 WP-14088-2026 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:40361 Signed by: PARITOSH KUMAR Signing time: 25-05-2026 21:20:10 Signature Not Verified

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →