MANGLAM BUILD-DEVELOPERS LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/2775/2026HC RajasthanRJHC02010217202627 May 2026Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioner had failed to comply with the Court's explicit direction dated May 5, 2026, to amend their writ petition by May 25, 2026. The Court noted that despite the clear order and the stipulated timeframe, the petitioner did not file the amended petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The reasoning is based solely on the non-compliance with the procedural direction. No decision was made on the merits of the original petition or the issues it raised. All pending applications were also dismissed as a consequence of the main petition being dismissed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Manglam Build-Developers Limited, through its Director Shri Nand Kishore Gupta, filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 2775/2026 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The respondent was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur. The Court, on May 5, 2026, had directed petitioners to amend their 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 May 27, 2026, with any interim orders 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, which directed the petitioner to amend their petition within four weeks by May 25, 2026, in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Tej Partap Singh. Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the petitioner regarding the non-filing of the amended petition. The petitioner was represented by Ms. Satvika Jha & Mr. Rohan Chatter on behalf of Mr. Siddharth Ranka. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondent. The respondent was represented by Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Ms. Tanushka Saxena.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2026:RJ-JP:22857-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2775/2026 Manglam Build-Developers Limited, Having Its Address At 6Th Floor, Apex Mall, Tonk Road, Lal Kothi, Jaipur Through Its Director Shri Nand Kishore Gupta Aged About 69 Years, Son Of Shri Rood Mal Gupta, Resident Of D-95, Madho Singh Circle, Banipark, Vtc, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, Having Its Address 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-Ii, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur- 302005. ----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 96-DivyaP

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →