PUNEET PRATAP SINGHAL SON OF SHRI DHURAV PRATAP SINGHAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/13409/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02072072202219 November 2025Author: MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL,BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU1 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the controversy involved in the present writ petition was no longer res integra and had been resolved by a co-ordinate bench of the High Court. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the learned counsels for both the petitioner and the respondents, who jointly stated that the controversy stood resolved by the co-ordinate bench order dated 21.08.2025 in the case of Rajesh Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of that order. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a previous decision of a co-ordinate bench, subsequent similar matters should be disposed of in accordance with that precedent. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Puneet Pratap Singhal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1), Jaipur; the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-2; and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The writ petition challenged an order or action by the revenue authorities. The procedural history indicates that the matter was brought before the court via a writ petition. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in the provided text.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the controversy involved in the present writ petition was res integra (a matter not previously decided) or had already been resolved by a co-ordinate bench of the same court. The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that the controversy was no longer res integra and had been resolved by a co-ordinate bench's order dated 21.08.2025 in the case of Rajesh Sharma Vs. Income Tax Officer; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14638/2022 and other connected matters. The revenue's counsel did not present any opposing arguments, implicitly agreeing that the matter was resolved. The question of law, therefore, was whether the present writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the aforementioned co-ordinate bench order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:46602-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13409/2022 Puneet Pratap Singhal Son Of Shri Dhurav Pratap Singhal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of 6/221, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur 302039 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7 (1), Jaipur Having Its Address At Sidhnath Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur 2. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-2, Jaipur Having Its Address At Sidhnath Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi, Through Its Chairman ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka Mr. Rohan Chatter Mr. Satvik Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Palash Gupta for Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order 19/11/2025 Learned counsels for the respective parties submit that the controversy involved in the present case is no more res integra and stands resolved by a co-ordinate Bench order of this Court dated 21.08.2025 passed in the case of Rajesh Sharma Vs.

Income Tax Officer; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14638/2022 and other connected matters and pray for disposal of the instant writ petition in terms thereof.

Ordered accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DANISH USMANI /173

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →