M/S ORIENT TOWNSHIP DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(4)

CW/1514/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02007086202412 July 2024Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition in the same terms as its previous decision in M/s Aaron Land Developers Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer (DBCWP No.1316/2024). The Court found that the issue was squarely covered by the aforementioned precedent. The operative direction was to allow the petition, thereby quashing the impugned intimation and assessment order as against the petitioner. However, a clarification was provided that the Department would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, implying that the revenue could initiate fresh proceedings if legally permissible. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed without proper notice and against an incorrect entity, leading to a demand against the wrong party, is unsustainable and liable to be quashed, subject to the revenue's right to follow due process.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Orient Township Developers Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an intimation dated 03.01.2024, which was based on an assessment order dated 24.05.2023 for Assessment Year 2014-2015. The core of the dispute was that the assessment order was allegedly passed without serving notice and was initially directed at a different entity. Subsequently, the intimation and demand were sought to be recovered from the petitioner-company. The parties agreed that the issue was covered by a previous decision of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated 24.05.2023 and the subsequent intimation dated 03.01.2024 for Assessment Year 2014-2015 are liable to be quashed on the grounds that the assessment order was passed without serving notice to the petitioner and was initially made against a different entity, with the demand later sought to be recovered from the petitioner-company? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and proper identification of the assessee). Assessee's Contention: The assessment order was passed without proper service of notice and against an incorrect entity, rendering the subsequent intimation and demand invalid as against the petitioner. Revenue's Contention: The parties were at ad idem, meaning they agreed on the issue and its resolution based on a prior court decision. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this agreement.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:29319-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1514/2024 M/s Orient Township Developers Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At - 26, Laxmi Complex, M.i. Road, Jaipur- 302001 Through Its Director Sh. Rajesh Sharma ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(4), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan Mr. Sanjay Jhanwal Mr. Rajat Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi Mr. Aditya Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 12/07/2024 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of intimation dated 03.01.2024 for the Assessment Year 2014-2015 vide assessment order dated 24.05.2023. 2. The issue involved in the present petition is that the assessment order was passed without serving notice and on a different entity than the petitioner. However, later the intimation and demand was sought to be recovered from the petitioner- company. 3. Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of

[2024:RJ-JP:29319-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1514/2024] this Court dated 09.05.2024 passed in DBCWP No.1316/2024 (M/s Aaron Land Developers Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer). 4. The writ petition is allowed in the same terms. However, it is clarified that the Department shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple/Tanisha/65

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →