DEEPTI AGRAWAL, D/O SHRI MANI RAM DADU vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/2652/2026HC RajasthanRJHC02011747202627 May 2026Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition should be dismissed because the petitioner failed to file the amended writ petition within the time granted by the court. The court had specifically directed the amendment by May 25, 2026, following the Supreme Court's order in the Tej Partap Singh case. As the petitioner did not comply with this direction, the court dismissed the writ petition. The reasoning is based on the procedural default of the petitioner in adhering to the court's order. No decision was made on the merits of the original writ petition. All pending applications were also dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepti Agrawal, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4, Jaipur. The High Court, on May 5, 2026, had directed petitioners to amend their writ petitions within four weeks, by May 25, 2026, in light of a Supreme Court judgment in SLP (C). Diary No(s). 2196/2026, titled Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Tej Partap Singh. The case was listed for further hearing on May 27, 2026. Any interim orders were to continue.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the writ petition should be dismissed due to the petitioner's failure to comply with the court's order to amend the petition within the stipulated time. The court had directed amendments based on the Supreme Court's decision in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Tej Partap Singh. The petitioner's side, represented by Ms. Satvika Jha & Mr. Rohan Chatter on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Ranka, did not present any arguments against the dismissal. The respondent's side, represented by Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Ms. Tanushka Saxena, did not present any arguments as the matter was decided on procedural non-compliance.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2026:RJ-JP:22840-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2652/2026 Deepti Agrawal, D/o Shri Mani Ram Dadu, Aged About 63 Years, R/o D-70, Jln Marg, Nera Teen Murti Circle, Arjun Lal Sethi Nagar, S.o Jaipur-302004, Through Her Authorised Signatory Shri Sudhir Naruka, Aged About 29 Years, S/o Shri Brijendra Singh, R/o C-208, Tara Nagar-C, Khirni Phatak, Jhotwara, Jaipur- 302012 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Satvika Jha & Mr. Rohan Chatter on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Ms. Tanushka Saxena HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU (Through V.C.) Order 27/05/2026 1. This Court on 05.05.2026 has passed the following order:- “1. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C). Diary No(s). 2196/2026, titled as Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Tej Partap Singh decided on 10.04.2026 and stated to have been uploaded on 28.04.2026, we give four weeks' time, as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, to the respective petitioners in each of the writ petitions listed before us to amend their petitions on or before 25.05.2026, if they so choose to. 2. List these cases on 27.05.2026. 3. Interim order, if any, shall continue till next date of hearing.” 2. Despite the aforesaid direction, the petitioner has not filed the amended writ petition within the stipulated time. 3. In view of above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 4. All pending applications also stand dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ 90-DivyaP

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →