MUKESH YADAV, SON OF SHRI GOPAL LAL YADAV vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

CW/10722/2021HC RajasthanRJHC02061971202129 July 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,ANAND SHARMA4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notices dated March 8, 2021, impugned in the six writ petitions (CWP Nos.10722/2021, 10730/2021, 10740/2021, 10741/2021, 10743/2021 and 10750/2021) were covered by the law laid down in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (1), Maharashtra, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Interim Board (Settlement Commission), New Delhi, Union of India. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside these notices. The Court also directed that any application filed before the Interim Board be considered and disposed of in accordance with the law. The rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. No specific assessment year or amount in dispute was mentioned.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mukesh Yadav, filed six writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging notices issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Jaipur. These notices were dated March 8, 2021. The petitions were connected and heard together. The core of the dispute revolved around the validity of these notices. The petitioner argued that the law laid down in a specific Bombay High Court judgment, Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, would cover the issues in these petitions. The revenue requested time to consider the petitions and take instructions. Subsequently, the revenue conceded that all petitions, except one (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10735/2021), were covered by the aforementioned judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices dated March 8, 2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Jaipur, are valid and legally sustainable? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the law laid down in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (1), Maharashtra, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Interim Board (Settlement Commission), New Delhi, Union of India (2024(4)TMI 204-Bombay High Court) squarely covers the issues in these petitions, implying the notices are not valid. Revenue's Contention: Initially, the revenue requested time to examine the petitions. Subsequently, on instructions, the revenue conceded that all petitions, except one, were covered by the law laid down in the aforementioned Bombay High Court judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:28752-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10722/2021 Mukesh Yadav, Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, Having His Address At 23, Shir Sagar Colony, Goliawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur 302020 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Jaipur, Having Its Address At Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005 2. Union Of India, Through Chairman, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, Secretariat Building, New Delhi ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10730/2021 Mukesh Yadav, Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, Having His Address At 23, Shir Sagar Colony, Goliawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur 302020 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005 2. Union Of India, Through Chairman, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, Secretariat Building, New Delhi ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10740/2021 Mukesh Yadav, Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, Having His Address At 23, Shir Sagar Colony, Goliawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur 302020 ----Petitioner Versus (Uploaded on 01/08/2025 at 04:43:14 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:38:42 AM)

[2025:RJ-JP:28752-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-10722/2021] 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005 2. Union Of India, Through Chairman, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, Secretariat Building, New Delhi ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10741/2021 Mukesh Yadav, Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, Having His Address At 23, Shir Sagar Colony, Goliawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur 302020 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005 2. Union Of India, Through Chairman, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, Secretariat Building, New Delhi ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10743/2021 Mukesh Yadav, Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, Having His Address At 23, Shir Sagar Colony, Goliawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur 302020 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005 2. Union Of India, Through Chairman, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, Secretariat Building, New Delhi ----Respondents (Uploaded on 01/08/2025 at 04:43:14 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:38:42 AM)

[2025:RJ-JP:28752-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-10722/2021] D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10750/2021 Mukesh Yadav, Son Of Shri Gopal Lal Yadav, Aged About 37 Years, Having His Address At 23, Shir Sagar Colony, Goliawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur 302020 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005 2. Union Of India, Through Chairman, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, Secretariat Building, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan Chatter & Mr. Apeksha Bapna For Respondent No.1 For Respondent No.2 : : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain & Mr. Meyhul Mittal Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 29/07/2025 1. When this bunch of petitions were taken up in pre-lunch session, Mr. Siddharth Ranka, counsel for petitioner submitted that the law as laid down in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (1), Maharashtra, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Interim Board (Settlement Commission), New Delhi, Union of India1 would squarely cover the issue in these petitions. 1 2024(4)TMI 204-Bombay High Court (Uploaded on 01/08/2025 at 04:43:14 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:38:42 AM)

[2025:RJ-JP:28752-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-10722/2021] 2. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for respondent No.1 requested the matters be passed over to post-lunch session so that he can consider the petitions and take instructions. 3. Post-lunch session, Mr. Siddharth Bapna on instructions stated that all petitions except D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10735/2021 would be covered by law laid down in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. (supra), which was authored by one of us (Chief Justice). 4. Therefore, the notices, all of which are dated 08th March 2021, impugned in these six petitions (CWP Nos.10722/2021, 10730/2021, 10740/2021, 10741/2021, 10743/2021 and 10750/2021), are quashed and set aside keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. Application filed before the Interim Board be considered and disposed in accordance with law. 5. Petitions disposed. 6. Copy of this order be placed in each connected file. (ANAND SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N. Gandhi-Daksh/42, 43 & 45-48 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 01/08/2025 at 04:43:14 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:38:42 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →