Girraj Kumar Khandelwal vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax

WP/15824/2020HC Madhya Pradesh11 January 2021Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU1 pages

For Petitioner: Pawan Kumar Dwivedi

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that the writ petition had become infructuous. The reasoning was based on the undisputed fact, conceded by the petitioner's counsel, that the payment of interest, which formed the basis of the petition, had since been made. Since the underlying issue was resolved by the subsequent action of the petitioner, there was no longer a live controversy for the court to adjudicate. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as infructuous. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition seeking a specific relief that has subsequently been granted or rendered moot by the actions of the petitioner will be dismissed as infructuous. No specific operative directions were issued other than the dismissal of the petition. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Girraj Kumar Khandelwal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The respondent was the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The specific assessment year(s) and the nature of the order or action under challenge are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the petition was heard through video conferencing. The core of the matter revolved around the payment of interest, which the petitioner's counsel acknowledged had since been made.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous in light of the subsequent payment of interest claimed by the petitioner? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the maintainability of the petition). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel, Shri Pawan Dwivedi, did not dispute that the payment of interest, which was the subject of the claim, had been made. This implicitly suggests that the petitioner's grievance, if any, related to this interest payment, has been resolved. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-Revenue, represented by Shri Dhrirendra Pratap Singh Bhadoriya, did not present any arguments against the petitioner's concession regarding the payment of interest. The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue's side beyond their appearance.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 WP 15824.2020 The High Court of Madhya Pradesh WP 15824.2020 [Girraj Kumar Khandelwal Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax] Gwalior dated 11.01.2021 Shri Pawan Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri Dhrirendra Pratap Singh Bhadoriya, learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue. Heard through video conferencing. Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute that payment of interest which is claimed herein has since been made. In view of the above, present petition having become infructuous is dismissed as such. (Sheel Nagu) (Anand Pathak) Judge Judge (Bu)

DHANA NJAY BUCHA KE Digitally signed by DHANANJAY BUCHAKE DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=6489e9ca230b3031a 4b44a621934281f589875c02f b2a20e4220aebc8a3ba7ec, cn=DHANANJAY BUCHAKE Date: 2021.01.12 13:56:51 +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →