MUKESH YADAV, SON OF SHRI GOPAL LAL YADAV vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/10735/2021HC RajasthanRJHC02061997202129 July 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,ANAND SHARMA2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notices dated 08th March 2021 and 28th June 2021. The Court followed the law laid down in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. (supra). The reasoning was that the ground for rejection based on the cut-off date was not sustainable. Furthermore, the Court noted that the additional ground raised by the revenue regarding the absence of pending proceedings was not recorded in the impugned orders. Therefore, the Court directed that the application filed before the Interim Board be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties. The operative direction was to quash the impugned notices and to have the application reconsidered.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mukesh Yadav, filed a settlement application before the Income Tax Settlement Commission. The revenue rejected the application on the ground that it was filed beyond the cut-off date. The petitioner challenged the rejection orders dated 08th March 2021 and 28th June 2021 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in a Civil Writ Petition. The revenue, through its counsel, indicated that there might be an additional ground for rejection, namely, the absence of pending proceedings, which is a pre-condition for filing a settlement application. However, this ground was not recorded as having been raised in the impugned orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the settlement application filed by the petitioner was liable to be rejected solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the cut-off date, as per the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the revenue could raise an additional ground for rejection, that there were no pending proceedings, when such a ground was not recorded in the impugned rejection orders? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the rejection of the settlement application on the ground of being filed beyond the cut-off date was incorrect. The assessee relied on the decision 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. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, stated that there could be another ground for rejection, which was that there were no pending proceedings, and therefore, the pre-condition to file an application before the Settlement Commissioner was not satisfied. However, the judgment notes that this ground was not found to be raised anywhere.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:28757-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10735/2021 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 & Ms. 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. Revenue had rejected settlement application on the ground that it was filed beyond the cut off date. 2. Both counsels in unison state that such issue has been answered in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd., Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (1), Maharashtra, Central Board of Direct Taxes, (Uploaded on 01/08/2025 at 04:49:01 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:38:47 AM) [2025:RJ-JP:28757-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10735/2021] Interim Board (Settlement Commission), New Delhi, Union of India1. 3. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, counsel for respondent No.1 states that his instructions are that there could be another ground for rejection, namely, that there was no pending proceedings and, therefore, the pre-condition to file an application before Settlement Commissioner is not satisfied. 4. As we do not find this ground raised anywhere, following law laid down in Sar Senapati Santaji Ghorpade Sugar Factory Ltd. (supra), which was authored by one of us (Chief Justice), impugned notices dated 08th March 2021 and 28th June 2021 are hereby 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. Petition disposed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N. Gandhi-Daksh/44 1 2024 (4) TMI 204-Bombay High Court Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 01/08/2025 at 04:49:01 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:38:47 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →