RAM RANJAN ROY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, while noting that none appeared for the appellant/assessee despite the matter being in the warning list, and that the records were not available, concluded that the appellant was not interested in prosecuting the matter. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court explicitly stated that the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant/assessee were left open, meaning they were not adjudicated upon.
What were the facts?
This is an appeal filed by the appellant, Ram Ranjan Roy, against an order or action that is not specified in the provided text. The respondents are the Commissioner of Income Tax and another. The appeal was listed in the warning list on July 24, 2025. The records for the case were reported as not available by the department. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for the respondents.
What were the issues?
The appeal was listed for hearing, and the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant/assessee were not decided. The judgment does not record any specific questions of law that the Tribunal had to decide, nor does it detail the arguments presented by either the assessee or the revenue. The judgment states that the substantial questions of law are left open.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD-1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE
ITA/149/2009
RAM RANJAN ROY VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
BEFORE : THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM -A N D- THE HON’BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS) DATE: 28th July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv. …for respondents.
The Court : - Though the matter was appearing in the warning list on 24th July, 2025, none appears for the appellant. Records are not available as reported by the department. Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, learned Standing Counsel, appears for the respondents. Thus, it appears that the appellant/assessee is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution. The substantial questions of law raised by the appellant/assessee are left open.
(T.S. SIVAGNANAM, CJ.)
(CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS), J.)
SM/pkd.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
