M/S.SHREE BANARSI MARBLE STONE PVT. LTD vs. ASSIT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX and ORS

PDF · subscribers
CW/82/2015HC Rajasthan2024:RJ-JD:35364-DB27 August 2024Bench: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, KULDEEP MATHUR3 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Genpact India Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., the Court noted that a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was available to the petitioner. The Court found no grounds to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petitioner sought and was granted permission to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to prefer the statutory appeal. The Court directed that if the appeal is filed within six weeks along with a condonation of delay application, it may be considered by the appellate authority, taking into account Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeals were disposed of with this liberty.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Shree Banarsi Marble Stone Pvt. Ltd., filed three writ petitions challenging notices issued on December 30, 2013, and a common assessment order dated December 3, 2014, for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. During the pendency of these petitions, assessment orders dated March 30, 2015, for the same assessment years were passed. The petitioner amended the writ petitions to challenge these subsequent assessment orders. The revenue contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in light of the statutory remedy of appeal available under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought indulgence from the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and argued for the maintainability of the writ petitions. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, relying on the decision in Genpact India Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. [(2019) 311 CTR(SC) 737], argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable as a statutory appeal under Section 246-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was available to the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 246-A,Section 14

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JD:35364-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 56/2015 M/s Shree Banarsi Marble Stone Pvt. Ltd, Plot No. SP-2, N.H.B, Udyog Vihar, Sukher, Udaipur through Director, Narayan Lal Patel S/o Shri Jeevan Ji Patel, aged about 61 years, R/o 175/1, Oda House, Fatehpura, Udaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Room No.16, 3rd Floor, Moomal Tower, 16, Saheli Marg, Udaipur. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 3rd Floor, Moomal Tower, 16, Saheli Marg, Udaipur. 3. The Director General of Income Tax, NCR Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 80/2015 M/s Shree Banarsi Marble Stone Pvt. Ltd, Plot No. SP-2, N.H.B, Udyog Vihar, Sukher, Udaipur through Director, Narayan Lal Patel S/o Shri Jeevan Ji Patel, aged about 61 years, R/o 175/1, Oda House, Fatehpura, Udaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Room No.16, 3rd Floor, Moomal Tower, 16, Saheli Marg, Udaipur. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 3rd Floor, Moomal Tower, 16, Saheli Marg, Udaipur. 3. The Director General of Income Tax, NCR Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 82/2015 M/s Shree Banarsi Marble Stone Pvt. Ltd, Plot No. SP-2, N.H.B, Udyog Vihar, Sukher, Udaipur through Director, Narayan Lal Patel S/o Shri Jeevan Ji Patel, aged about 61 years, R/o 175/1, Oda House, Fatehpura, Udaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Room No.16, 3rd Floor, Moomal Tower, 16, Saheli Marg, Udaipur. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 3rd Floor, Moomal Tower, 16, Saheli Marg, Udaipur. 3. The Director General of Income Tax, NCR Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents (Uploaded on 30/08/2024 at 04:27:46 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:49:14 AM)

[2024:RJ-JD:35364-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-56/2015] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order 27/08/2024 These writ petitions were filed to challenge the following notices issued on the same date and common assessment order dated 03rd December 2014 passed against the petitioner-firm namely M/s Shree Banarsi Marble Stone Pvt. Ltd:- Sr. No. Notice No. Date of Notice Assessment Year 1. 725 30th December 2013 2010-11 2. 726 30th December 2013 2011-12 3. 727 30th December 2013 2012-13 2. However, during the pendency of these writ petitions, the assessment orders all dated 30th March 2015 relevant to each of the assessment years came to be passed and, therefore, the petitioners amended the writ petitions to challenge those assessment orders issued on dated 30th March 2015 for the three assessment years. 3. Having regard to the challenge laid to the assessment orders against the petitioner- firm, Mr. K.K. Bissa, the learned counsel for the revenue referred to the decision in “Genpact India Private Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.” reported in (2019) 311 CTR(SC) 737 to submit that these writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioners- firm under section 246-A of Income Tax Act 1961. (Uploaded on 30/08/2024 at 04:27:46 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:49:14 AM)

[2024:RJ-JD:35364-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-56/2015] 4. Keeping in mind the aforementioned decision by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and having regard to the fact that no case is made out for indulgence by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 5. Mr. Sanjay Nahar, the learned counsel for the petitioner- firm endeavours to persuade this Court to grant indulgence in these matters. However, after arguing for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner- firm seeks permission to withdraw these writ petitions with liberty to the petitioner-firm to prefer the statutory appeal as provided under section 246-A of the Income Tax Act 1961. 6. Permission is granted. 7. If the statutory appeal under section 246-A is preferred by the petitioners-firm within six weeks with an application for condonation of delay, the same may be considered by the appellate authority having regard to the provisions under section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner-firm. 9. A copy of this order be placed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 80/2015 & 82/2015. (KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J 19-21 divya/mohit- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/08/2024 at 04:27:46 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:49:14 AM)

More judgments on Section 14

All 685 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →