RAGHAV COMMODITIES (DISSOLVED PARTNERSHIP FIRM) vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
CW/14896/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02070942202327 March 2024Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,BHUWAN GOYAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition without deciding the substantive issues. Instead, it directed the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, to decide the petitioner's pending representation within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The court's decision was based on the statement made by the respondents' counsel regarding the endeavor to decide the representation. No specific finding was made on the entitlement to interim relief or the merits of the substantive appeal, as the petition was disposed of procedurally. The operative direction was to decide the representation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Raghav Commodities (a dissolved partnership firm), filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition was filed because the petitioner did not receive interim relief due to the rejection of their application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A substantive appeal was still pending. The petitioner had subsequently made a representation to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, which remained undecided. The respondents' counsel stated that the authority would endeavor to decide the representation as early as possible.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim relief pending the decision on their substantive appeal, given the rejection of their application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought interim relief and highlighted the pendency of their representation before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, which had not been decided. Revenue's Contention: The respondents' counsel indicated that the authority would endeavor to decide the pending representation as early as possible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 220(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:14807-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14896/2023 Raghav Commodities (Dissolved Partnership Firm), Having Its Office At-205, Brij Anukampa, C-Scheme, Jaipur, 302001 Through Its Partner Sh. Ram Prakash Golyan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Income Tax, North Block, New Delhi - 110001. 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Through Its Member (Administration And Faceless Schemes), North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi- 110001. 3. National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi Through Its In-Charge Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax. 4. Income Tax Officer, Ward -6(2), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Mr. Arnav Singh HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 27/03/2024 1. Heard. 2. Though reply has not been filed by the respondents till date, we find that the petition has been filed by the petitioner because he could not get interim relief on account of rejection of the application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The substantive appeal is still pending consideration.

[2024:RJ-JP:14807-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-14896/2023] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of his application under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act, he has preferred a representation before the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur, which so far has not been decided one way or the other. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents would submit that the authority shall endeavor to decide the said representation as early as possible. 5. In view of above statement made before us, instead of keeping this petition pending, we are inclined to dispose it of, at this stage, with direction to Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur to decide the representation of the petitioner within the outer limit of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. The petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ Kamlesh Kumar-RAHUL/35

More judgments on Section 220(6)

All 54 judgments and leading authorities on Section 220(6) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →