BAR COUNCIL OF RAJASTHAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

CW/594/2002HC RajasthanRJHC01021215200127 September 2023Bench: VIJAY BISHNOI,YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT1 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that learned counsel for both parties were in agreement ('ad idem') that the issue involved in the present case was covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra and the judgment of the High Court in Bar Council of Rajasthan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. Based on this consensus and the precedent set by these judgments, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 08.03.2001 for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1976-77. The ratio decidendi is that if an issue is squarely covered by a binding precedent from the Supreme Court or a High Court in favour of the assessee, and both parties acknowledge this, the impugned order should be set aside. No issues were left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Bar Council of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.03.2001 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jodhpur (respondent no. 2) for assessment years 1971-72 to 1976-77. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur (respondent no. 1) was also a respondent. The parties agreed that the issue was covered by Supreme Court and High Court judgments in favour of the petitioner. The specific amount in dispute is not recorded. The procedural history leading to the impugned order is not detailed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 08.03.2001 for assessment years 1971-72 to 1976-77 is liable to be quashed. (Question of law/mixed law and fact) Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra and the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in Bar Council of Rajasthan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, both of which are in favour of the petitioner. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side. However, the parties are stated to be 'ad idem' (of the same mind) that the issue is covered by the aforementioned judgments.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2023:RJ-JD:31983-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 594/2002 Bar Council of Rajasthan Jodhpur, through its Secretary, Shri Om Prakash Gupta, Advocate. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur. 2. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jodhpur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anjay Kothari. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 27/09/2023 (Oral) Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue involved in the present case is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in favour of the petitioner. In this regard reference has been made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Bar Council of Maharashtra [(1981) 49 CCH 0316 ISCC] and the judgment of this Court in Bar Council of Rajasthan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax [(1984) 52 CCH 00023 RajHC]. 2. In light of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.03.2001 for the assessment years 1971-72 to 1976-77 (Annex.4) is hereby quashed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ 22-a.asopa/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/09/2023 at 04:17:13 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:02:15 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →