MANISH GOLYAN vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/337/2024HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:7801-DB07 February 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition based on joint submissions from both parties for a time-bound disposal of the appeal. The Court directed the respondents to decide the appeal pending before them within a period of three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the order. The interim order dated January 25, 2024, was ordered to remain in currency for the next three months. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the validity of the original return filed by the petitioner. The primary focus was on expediting the appellate process and maintaining the status quo regarding recovery measures until the appeal was decided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manish Golyan, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. The petitioner's counsel submitted that a return filed earlier was a mistake, as it was merely a calculation prepared for a client who ultimately filed a computation of total income. This computation involved the sale of unlisted securities valued at over Rs. 10 Crores. An interim order was passed on January 25, 2024, directing that the petitioner's appeal would not be dismissed and no coercive measures would be taken for recovering the demand, which was the subject of the pending appeal. The respondents were directed to file a reply. The present writ petition was filed challenging the actions of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur, and the Income Tax Officer, Ward, Nohar.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the interim order dated 25.01.2024, which protected the petitioner from dismissal of his appeal and coercive recovery measures, should be continued until the disposal of the appeal. Assessee's contention: The petitioner sought the continuation of the interim order and a time-bound disposal of the appeal. The petitioner argued that the initial return was filed by mistake and was merely a calculation for a client. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not present any specific arguments against the continuation of the interim order or the time-bound disposal of the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent was present and had been directed to complete instructions and file a reply.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:7801-DB] (1 of 2) [CW-337/2024] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 337/2024 Manish Golyan S/o Shri Vinod Kumar Golyan, Aged About 29 Years, Ward No. 25, Bihani Marg, Nohar, Hanumangarh 335523 (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jodhpur 1, Income Tax Office, Paota C Road, Jodhpur 342006 2. Income Tax Officer Of Income Tax, Ward, Nohar, Aayakar Bhawan, Collectorate Circle, Hanumangarh 335512, 3. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Minisry Of Finance, 3Rd Floor Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

Order 07/02/2025

1.

Learned counsel for both the parties drew the Court's attention to the following interim order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 25.01.2024 :- “1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner based on the documents annexed with the additional affidavit that the filing of the Return by the petitioner was by mistake, as the same was only a calculation prepared by the petitioner for the purpose of explaining the same to his client, who ultimately filed the computation of total income (Annex.B) filed with the (Uploaded on 07/02/2025 at 05:03:00 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:17:22 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:7801-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-337/2024] additional affidavit, wherein, he had sold unlisted securities having sale value of over Rs.10 Crores.

2.

In view of the submissions made, issue notice of the writ petition as well as additional affidavit to the respondents.

3.

The same be served on Mr. K.K. Bissa, who is directed to complete his instructions in the matter/file reply by the next date.

4.

List the petition on 12.02.2024. 5. In the meanwhile and till the next date, the appeal filed by the petitioner shall not be dismissed and the respondents shall not take coercive measures for recovering the demand raised, which is subject matter of the pending appeal.”

2.

Learned counsel for both the parties submit that a time bound disposal of the appeal may be ordered and the aforequoted interim order may be ordered to be continued till the disposal of such appeal.

3.

In light of such limited joint submissions, the present writ petition is disposed of while directing the respondents to decided

the appeal pending before it within a period of three months from the date of receiving the certified copy of this order. It is made clear that for next three months, the order dated 25.01.2024 shall remain in currency. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 39-Sudheer/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 07/02/2025 at 05:03:00 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:17:22 PM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →