VETO SWITCHGEARS AND CABLES LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
CW/84/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02107302202322 January 2025Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,PANKAJ BHANDARI5 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, exercising its discretion, declined to entertain the writ petitions. The court noted that notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were issued in June 2023, and the writ petitions were filed in January 2024, indicating a significant delay. The court found that in these circumstances, it was not inclined to entertain the petitions. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed. However, the court granted liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order by taking recourse to appropriate remedies available under the law. Specifically, if an individual appeal is filed within a period of two months from the date of this order, it shall be decided on its own merits without considering the issue of limitation. The court did not decide on the merits of the grounds raised in the writ petitions.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, including Veto Electropowers (India) Private Limited, Mr. Babu Lal Gurnani, Veto Switchgears And Cables Limited, and Mr. Akshay Kumar Gurnani, filed writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. These petitions challenged notices issued under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notices were issued in June 2023, and the writ petitions were filed in January 2024, indicating a delay in approaching the court. The petitioners argued that the delay should not prevent the court from exercising its discretion, citing various Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The respondents, Union of India and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, relied on a previous order of the same court dismissing a writ petition on grounds of delay in similar circumstances.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petitions despite a delay in filing, considering the grounds raised by the petitioners? (Question of law and fact, concerning the exercise of writ jurisdiction). Assessee's Contentions: - The petitioners argued that the delay should not impede the court's discretion to entertain the petitions, relying on Supreme Court decisions in *Suresh Chand Versus Union of India and Others*, *M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited Versus District Board and other connected matter*, and *Kiran Singh and Others Versus Chaman Paswan and Others*. - They also cited High Court decisions from Rajasthan (*Ram Babu Agarwal Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another*, *Micro Marbles (P) Ltd. Versus Office of the Income Tax Officer*, *R. K. Buildcreations Private Limited Versus The Income Tax Officer*) and Bombay (*Madhavlal Sindhoo Versus V.R. Idurkar*, *Akhila Sujith Versus Income Tax Officer, International*, *Bhoomi Viral Shah Versus Income Tax Officer*), and Andhra Pradesh (*Sathya Kumar and Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others*). - The petitioners stated they had not participated in the proceedings initiated by the notices. Revenue's Contentions: - The respondents relied on an order dated 29.11.2023 passed by the same court in *Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax*, where a writ petition was dismissed due to delay in similar circumstances involving notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:3177-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 81/2024 Veto Electropowers (India) Private Limited, 506, 5Th Floor, Plot No. B-9, Landmark Building, New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 400058, Through Authorised Person Mr. Narain Das Gurnani, S/o Rewa Chand Gurnani, Age 66 Years (Approx), R/o 171, Sindhi Colony, Raja Park, Jaipur 302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, 418, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, 302005 3. Director General Of Income-Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, B.d. Road, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 126/2024 Mr. Babu Lal Gurnani S/o Rewa Chand Gurnani, Aged About 61 Years (Approx), R/o A-1, Saket Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, 302004. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, 418, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur , 302005 3. Director General Of Income-Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, B.d. Road, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 84/2024

[2025:RJ-JP:3177-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-81/2024] Veto Switchgears And Cables Limited, 506, Fifth Floor, Landmark Building, New Link Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai 400058. Through Authorised Person Mr. Akshay Kumar Gurnani S/o Vishnu Kumar Gurnani, Age 26 Year (Approx), R/o 250, Freionter Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur, 302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, 418, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, 302005 3. Director General Of Income-Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, B.d. Road, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 85/2024 Veto Electropowers (India) Private Limited, 506, 5Th Floor, Plot No. B-9, Landmark Building, New Link Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai- 400058. Through Authorised Person Mr. Narain Das Gurnani S/o Rewa Chand Gurnani, Age 66 Years (Approx), R/o 171, Sindhi Colony, Raja Park, Jaipur, 302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur, 418, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur , 302005 3. Director General Of Income-Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, B.d. Road, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 104/2024 Mr. Akshay Kumar Gurnani S/o Vishnu Kumar Gurnani, Aged About 26 Years (Approx), R/o 250, Freionter Colony, Adarsh

[2025:RJ-JP:3177-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-81/2024] Nagar, Jaipur, 302004 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi- 110001 2. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 3, Jaipur, 418, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, 302005 3. Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation), Rajasthan, New Central Revenue Building, B.d. Road, Statue Circle, Jaipur-302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jatin Harjai Advocate Mr. Dharan Gandhi Advocate & Jaishree Kothari Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 22/01/2025 1. Heard on admission. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that delay would not come in the way of exercising discretion by this Court to entertain these petitions in view of specific grounds taken in the writ petitions. He relies upon various orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Suresh Chand Versus Union of India and Others, (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 563, M/s. Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited Versus District Board and other connected matter (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 598, Kiran Singh and Others Versus

[2025:RJ-JP:3177-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-81/2024] Chaman Paswan and Others, AIR 1954 SC 340 and the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ram Babu Agarwal Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.730/2024, decided on 15.03.2024, Micro Marbles (P) Ltd. Versus Office of the Income Tax Officer, [2023] 457 ITR 569 (Rajasthan), R. K. Buildcreations Private Limited Versus The Income Tax Officer, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14414/2022, decided on 08.02.2024 and the decisions of Bombay High Court in the cases of Madhavlal Sindhoo Versus V.R. Idurkar, [1956] 30 ITR 332 (Bombay), Akhila Sujith Versus Income Tax Officer, International, [2024] 166 taxmann.com 478 (Bombay), Bhoomi Viral Shah Versus Income Tax Officer, [2024] 165 taxmann.com 682 (Bombay) and the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad in the case of Sathya Kumar and Others Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1971 AP 320. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relies upon order dated 29.11.2023 passed by this Court in the case of Nirmal Kumar Bardiya Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax by submitting that in similar circumstances where notices under Section 143 (2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued, there was delay in approaching this court, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of delay. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioners have not participated in the proceedings.

[2025:RJ-JP:3177-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-81/2024] 5. We find that notices under Section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were issued in the month of June, 2023 and the writ petitions were filed in January, 2024. 6. Therefore, in these circumstances, in exercise of our discretion, we are not inclined to entertain the petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to challenge the order by taking recourse to appropriate remedy available under the law. 7. If the individual appeal is filed within a period of two months, the appeal shall be decided on its own merit without going into the issue of limitation. 8. A copy of this order be placed on record of each writ petition. (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/Mahima/55-59

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →