PRASHANT GUPTA, S/O SHRI GOPAL PRASAD GUPTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the grievance of the petitioner(s) had become academic because the department had accepted the returned income. Consequently, the Court found no further purpose in keeping the matters pending. The Court closed the proceedings and disposed of all the petitions as having become otiose. The High Court clarified that the questions raised in other petitions would not be affected by the disposal of these petitions. The operative direction was to dispose of the petitions. No specific issue was left undecided; rather, the entire matter was disposed of on the grounds of it becoming academic.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Prashant Gupta, filed three Civil Writ Petitions challenging notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur. The petitions were filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the judgment. The procedural history indicates that the revenue, through its counsel, submitted that the issue raised in the petitions has become academic because the department has accepted the returned income after the impugned notices were issued. The petitioner's counsel contended that the issuance of the notices themselves was flawed. The High Court observed that the petitioner's grievance had become academic due to the acceptance of the return.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the issuance of the notices by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax was bad in law, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the issue raised in the petitions has become academic, rendering further proceedings unnecessary, as argued by the Revenue. The petitioner contended that the notices themselves were bad. The Revenue argued that the department has accepted the returned income after the issuance of the notices, making the issue academic and that no further purpose would be served in keeping the matters pending. The judgment does not explicitly name any provisions of the Income Tax Act or refer to any specific authorities, circulars, or precedents relied upon by either side.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 04/11/2025
Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the issue raised in these petitions has been rendered academic as the department has accepted the returned income, after issuance of the notices, which are impugned herein. In view thereto, no further purpose would be served in keeping these matters pending.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s), however, submits that the issuance of notice itself was bad.
We find that the grievance of the petitioner(s) has become academic, as the return has been accepted.
In view thereto, we close the proceedings and dispose of all the petitions as having become otiose.
It is made clear that the question raised in the other petitions would not be affected on account of disposal of these petitions.
Accordingly, these petitions stand disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/40, 42 & 43
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
