RAM SINGH MEENA S/O SH. RAM KARAN MEENA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/1720/2023HC Rajasthan2023:RJ-JP:39062-DB12 December 2023Bench: ARUN BHANSALI, ASHUTOSH KUMAR2 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition. It acknowledged that the issue raised was covered by the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India and Anr. Vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra), which held that the amended provisions are not retrospective. Consequently, the Court directed the release of the disputed property, described as 0.1506 hectare comprising specific portions of land in Khasra Nos. 832, 833/2361, 848, 849, and 846 in Village Kukar, Amer, Jaipur. However, the Court clarified that this order was solely at the instance of petitioner No. 1. The release of the property was made subject to the final outcome of the review petition pending before the Supreme Court concerning the M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. judgment. Petitioner No. 2, while impleaded, was not claiming any relief in its capacity as a petitioner.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Ram Singh Meena and M/s Amigo Hotels, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged an order or action by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and Initiating Officer. The core of the dispute appears to revolve around the release of certain properties, specifically 0.1506 hectare comprising parts of Khasra Nos. 832, 833/2361, 848, 849, and 846 in Village Kukar, Amer, Jaipur. The procedural history indicates that the petitioners relied on a Supreme Court judgment, while the revenue acknowledged the judgment's applicability to petitioner No. 1 but not petitioner No. 2, noting a pending review petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the amended provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, are retrospective, impacting the present case? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the issue raised in the petition has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2002 SC 4558), implying that the amended provisions are not retrospective and thus relief should be granted. Revenue's Contention: The respondents conceded that petitioner No. 1 may be entitled to relief based on the Supreme Court's decision in M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., stating that the amended provisions are not retrospective. However, they contended that petitioner No. 2 is not entitled to any relief. The revenue also submitted that a review petition concerning the M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. judgment is pending before the Supreme Court, though it was not disputed that the issue is covered by the said order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2023:RJ-JP:39062-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1720/2023 1. Ram Singh Meena S/o Sh. Ram Karan Meena, aged about 53 years, R/o Village and Post- Mainpura, Tehsil and District- Sawaimadhopur. 2. M/s Amigo Hotels, having its Office at - 409-413, 4th Floor, Arcade, K-12, Malviya Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur - 302003 through its Partner Ram Babu Agarwal. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (Benami Prohibition) and Initiating Officer, under PBPT Act- 1988 for State of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Room No. Na-103, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302001. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Jaipur, Room No. 250, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaideep Malik on behalf of Mr. Javed Khan. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Ms. Kriti Kalawati. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 12/12/2023 1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the issue raised in the present petition has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. : AIR 2002 SC 4558. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the petitioner No.1 may be entitled to seek a relief from this Court on account of the fact that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (Uploaded on 12/12/2023 at 06:03:06 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:27:41 AM)

[2023:RJ-JP:39062-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1720/2023] M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been laid down that the amended provisions are not retrospective. However, petitioner No.2 is not entitled to seek any relief from this Court. 3. Further submissions have been made that review petition in respect of the said judgments in the case of M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, it is not disputed that the issue raised is covered by the order passed in the case of M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that in so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, he was impleaded as a party, as in the order impugned, he was also shown as one of the parties. However, the petitioner No.2 in its capacity as petitioner is not claiming any relief. 5. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of. 6. The property in dispute being 0.1506 hectare which is 5/16th part of land bearing Khasra No.832 (having total area of 0.05 hectare) and 9/32 part of Khasra No.833/2361, 848, 849, 846 (having total area of 0.48 hectare) situated at Village Kukar, Amer, Jaipur be released. Necessary steps be taken to release the disputed property. 7. However, it is made clear that the said order is only at the instance of the petitioner No.1 and the release of the property will be subject to the final order that may ultimately be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending review petition. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 195-DJ/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 12/12/2023 at 06:03:06 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:27:41 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →