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

CW/1721/2023HC Rajasthan19 May 2023Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, ANIL KUMAR UPMAN2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the release of the disputed property. The Court reasoned that the issue had been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., and this order remained operative. The High Court found that the property in dispute, comprising specific hectares of land across various Khasra numbers in Village Kukas, Amer, Jaipur, deserved to be released. The operative direction was for necessary steps to be taken for the release of the property. However, the Court made it clear that this release would be subject to the final order that may ultimately be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending review petition. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ram Singh Meena, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging an action by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and Initiating Officer, and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition), Jaipur. The dispute pertains to the release of certain agricultural land parcels in Village Kukas, Amer, Jaipur. The petitioner argued that the issue had been decided by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. The respondents acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision but stated that a review petition was pending. The High Court noted that the Supreme Court's order remained operative.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the property in dispute, described as specific parcels of land in Village Kukas, Amer, Jaipur, should be released in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (AIR 2022 SC 4558)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue had been conclusively decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., implying that the property should be released. Revenue's Contention: The respondents submitted that while the Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided the issue in the cited case, a review petition was pending before the Supreme Court. However, they could not dispute that the Supreme Court's order remained operative and had not been decided.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

PBPT Act- 1988

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2023/RJJP/011438] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1721/2023 Ram Singh Meena S/o Sh. Ram Karan Meena, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village And Post- Mainpura, Tehsil And District- Sawaimadhopur. ----Petitioner 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. Javed Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/05/2023 Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in this petition has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 4558. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, would submit that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court has decided the issue in the aforesaid case, review petition has been filed which is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (Uploaded on 25/05/2023 at 08:22:56 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:27:29 AM)

[2023/RJJP/011438] (2 of 2) [CW-1721/2023] Learned counsel for the respondents, however, could not dispute that the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) remains operative and has not been decided so far. In view of the above, this petition also deserves to be allowed and accordingly, the property in dispute being “3074 hectares which is 1/3 part of Khasra No.653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658/2340, 658/2341, 662, 664, 665, 652 (having total area of 1.68 hectare) and 1/5 part of Khasra Nos. 847/3, 853, 885/2, 886/2 (having total area of 4.56 hectare) and 1/9 part of Khasras No.869, 871, 872, 873, 874, 875, 876, 878, 879, 882, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1091, 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 867, 868 (having total area of 4.40 hectare) and 3474/8700 part of Khasra No.840 (having total area of 0.87 hectare) of Village – Kukas, Amer, Jaipur” deserves to be released. Let necessary steps be taken to release the disputed property. It is, however, made clear that the release will be subject to the final order that may ultimately be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending review petition. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/18 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 25/05/2023 at 08:22:56 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:27:29 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →