NAVJEEVAN RESORTS AND HOLIDAYS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/3413/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02014854202322 January 2025Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,PANKAJ BHANDARI2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Rajeev Bansal-2024 SCC Online 2693, was not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner concerning the issue of limitation. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had taken recourse to various other remedies, including applying for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, on December 30, 2024. Given the Supreme Court's order and the subsequent proceedings initiated by the petitioner, the High Court was not inclined to proceed further with the writ petition. The petition was disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedies already taken. The Court explicitly stated that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, except for the issue of limitation.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Navjeevan Resorts And Holidays Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur, and the Union of India. The petition challenged an order or action, the specifics of which are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the petition was filed and subsequently, during its pendency, the petitioner applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, on December 30, 2024. The High Court considered an order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Rajeev Bansal-2024 SCC Online 2693.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief concerning the issue of limitation, in light of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India & Others vs. Rajeev Bansal-2024 SCC Online 2693? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the petitioner regarding the issue of limitation or any other matter. The petitioner's primary action was filing the writ petition and later opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue regarding the issue of limitation or any other matter. The revenue was represented by Ms. Jaya P. Pathak.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3413/2023 Navjeevan Resorts And Holidays Private Limited, B-92, Rajdhani Anaj Mandi, Sikar Road, Jaipur Through Its Authorised Signatory Rajesh Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Late Nand Kishore Khandelwal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o B-92, Rajdhani Anaj Mandi, Sikar Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi 110002 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kanishk Singhal on behalf of Mr. Gunjan Pathak For Respondent(s) : Ms. Jaya P. Pathak on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 22/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others vs. Rajeev Bansal-2024 SCC Online 2693, we are not inclined to grant any relief insofar as issue of limitation is concerned. 3. It is also brought to our notice that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has taken recourse to various other

(2 of 2) [CW-3413/2023] remedies including application for settlement under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 on 30.12.2024. 4. In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and subsequent proceedings and remedy which has already been taken during the pendency of this petition, we are not inclined to proceed further in the petition. 5. This petition is disposed of reserving a liberty to the petitioner to pursue alternative remedies which he has already taken recourse to. We may hasten to add here that we are not expressing any opinion on merits except issue of limitation. (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ NAVAL KISHOR-HEENA/53

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →