RAMDHAN MEENA S/O SH. REWADMAL MEENA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/10440/2023HC Rajasthan2023:RJ-JP:30722-DB19 October 2023Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, PRAVEER BHATNAGAR2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that the adjudicating authority was obliged under the law to send official communication to the revenue authority regarding the revocation of attachment once such an order was passed. While noting that the petitioner took eight months to inform the respondent of the issue, the Court directed the respondent to positively send a communication to the concerned revenue authority within six weeks from the date of the order. The Court also advised the petitioner to directly approach the revenue authority with the revocation order for necessary corrections in revenue entries. The Court placed on record the respondent's submission regarding a pending review petition before the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ramdhan Meena, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, seeking a direction for the respondent, Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), to communicate the revocation of attachment of his property to the revenue authority. An order revoking the attachment had been passed by the adjudicating authority on August 29, 2022, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. However, the revenue records continued to show the property under attachment due to the lack of official communication from the initiating authority. The petitioner himself took approximately eight months to bring this issue to the respondent's attention.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the adjudicating authority, after passing an order revoking the attachment of property, is obliged to officially communicate this revocation to the revenue authority. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite the order of revocation of attachment dated August 29, 2022, the respondent had failed to communicate this to the revenue authority, resulting in the property remaining recorded as attached in revenue records. The petitioner sought a direction for such communication. Revenue's Contention: The respondent did not explicitly argue against the necessity of communication but indicated that a review petition had been filed before the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., which was pending consideration. The respondent was directed to send communication to the revenue authority.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2023:RJ-JP:30722-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10440/2023 Ramdhan Meena S/o Sh. Rewadmal Meena, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village - Langdiyawas, Tehsil - Jamwaramgarh, District - Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Benami Prohibition), Rajasthan, Jaipur, Room No. 335, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 19/10/2023 Heard. Taking into consideration the nature of relief sought in the writ petition, we are not inclined to keep this petition pending. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 4558, the adjudicating authority has passed the order on 29.08.2022 revoking attachment of petitioner’s property. What is brought the petitioner before this Court is that despite the order having been passed the initiating authority/respondent is not sending any communication to the revenue authority regarding revocation of attachment with the (Uploaded on 20/10/2023 at 05:41:23 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:27:37 AM)

[2023:RJ-JP:30722-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10440/2023] result that the revenue records continue to record the property under attachment. We find that the petitioner himself has taken about eight months to inform this fact to the respondent. However, once an order of revocation has been passed, the adjudicating authority was obliged under the law to send official communication to the revenue authority regarding revocation. However, now the respondent should positively send a communication to the concerned revenue authority within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioner may directly approach the revenue authority on the basis of order dated 29.08.2022 passed by the adjudicating authority for carrying out necessary correction removing the attachment flag from the revenue entries pertaining to the land of the petitioner. In case petitioner approaches revenue authority, the revenue authority shall do well to carry out necessary correction within a period of six weeks. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of. We place on record the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the review petition has been filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of order passed in the case of Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., which is pending consideration. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J 27- Mohit Kumar Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/10/2023 at 05:41:23 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:27:37 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →