LATA MAHESHWARI WIFE OF SHRI BALLABH DAS MAHESHWARI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/14890/2021HC RajasthanRJHC02084175202107 February 2022Bench: AKIL KURESHI,SUDESH BANSAL2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court granted permission to the petitioners to withdraw the writ petitions. The court's decision was based on the request made by the petitioners' counsel to withdraw the petitions while reserving all contentions to be raised before the assessing officer in the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed of as withdrawn. The court did not delve into the merits of any substantive tax issue, and therefore, no specific tax principles were established or ratios laid down for future citation. The operative direction was solely to permit the withdrawal of the petitions.

What were the facts?

These are three connected civil writ petitions filed by Lata Maheshwari and Ballabh Das Maheshwari against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Jaipur. The petitions challenge certain orders or actions by the revenue. The procedural history indicates that the petitioners sought permission to withdraw these writ petitions. They wished to reserve all their contentions to be raised before the assessing officer in the reassessment proceedings. The court considered this request.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioners should be granted permission to withdraw the writ petitions, reserving their rights to raise contentions before the assessing officer in reassessment proceedings? Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petitions, explicitly stating that all contentions should be kept open to be raised before the assessing officer in the reassessment proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondent revenue authority regarding the withdrawal of the petitions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14890/2021 Lata Maheshwari Wife Of Shri Ballabh Das Maheshwari, Aged About 54 Years, Having Her Address At C-21, Chomu House, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4,jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-Ii, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur 302005 ----Respondent Connected with D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14901/2021 Ballabh Das Maheshwari Son Of Shri Roop Chand Maheshwari, Having His Address At 4-5, Shubham Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur 302001 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi- Ii, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Cirlce, Jaipur 302005 ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14917/2021 Ballabh Das Maheshwari Son Of Shri Roop Chand Maheshwari, Having His Address At 4-5, Shubham Enclave, Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur 302001 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi- Ii, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Cirlce, Jaipur 302005 ----Respondent (Uploaded on 10/02/2022 at 05:21:30 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:46:55 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-14890/2021] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka and Mr. Shankar Lal Poddar through VC For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 07/02/2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petitions keeping all contentions open to be raised before the assessing officer in the reassessment proceedings. Permission is granted. The writ petitions are disposed of as withdrawn. (SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ KAMLESH KUMAR /4, 5 & 6 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 10/02/2022 at 05:21:30 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:46:55 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →