OLIVE BUILDERS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/2758/2026HC RajasthanRJHC02012293202627 May 2026Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Court held that despite the clear direction issued on May 5, 2026, to amend the writ petition by May 25, 2026, the petitioner failed to comply with this order within the stipulated time. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original petition or the issues that might have arisen from the Supreme Court's judgment. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition. No issues were expressly left undecided; the decision was based on procedural non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Olive Builders, through its partner Raj Agarwal, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Jaipur. On May 5, 2026, the Court 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 matter was listed for May 27, 2026, and any interim orders were to continue. However, the petitioner failed to file the amended writ petition within the stipulated time.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-compliance with the Court's order dated May 5, 2026, directing the amendment of the petition by May 25, 2026. (Question of procedure) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the non-filing of the amended petition. The counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent's counsel regarding the non-filing of the amended petition. The counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2026:RJ-JP:22855-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2758/2026 Olive Builders, Having Its Address At 298, Opp. Hathroi School, Ajmer Road, Jaipur 302001, Through Its Partner Raj Agarwal, Aged About 46 Years, S/o Shri Manohar Lal Agarwal, R/o 298, Opp. Hathroi School, Ajmer Road, Jaipur 302001 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 410, 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 95-DivyaP

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →