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

CW/1725/2023HC Rajasthan19 May 2023Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, ANIL KUMAR UPMAN2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the writ petition deserved to be allowed. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the issue had been decided by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Although the revenue pointed to a pending review petition, they could not dispute that the Supreme Court's order was still operative. Consequently, the property in dispute was ordered to be released. The Tribunal clarified that this release would be subject to the final outcome of the review petition pending before the Supreme Court. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court should follow a binding Supreme Court judgment unless it has been stayed or set aside, even if a review petition is pending, but the relief granted can be made subject to the final decision in the review.

What were the facts?

This writ petition was filed by Ram Singh Meena against the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition) and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Benami Prohibition). The petitioner sought the release of disputed property, described as '1/21 part of 5/6 part of Khasra Nos.688, 695, 696, 698, 699, 702, 703, 704, 707-713, 722-727, 729, 731/2350, 732-736, 737/2352 & 737/2353 (having total area of 2.30 hectare) in Village – Kukas, Tehsil – Amer, Jaipur'. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue had been decided by the Supreme Court. The respondents acknowledged the Supreme Court's decision but stated that a review petition was pending.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present writ petition should be allowed in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2022 SC 4558? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue raised in the petition has been conclusively decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Another Versus M/S. Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Revenue's Contention: The respondents submitted that while the Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided the issue in the cited case, a review petition against that judgment was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, they could not dispute that the Supreme Court's order remained operative and had not been decided.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2023/RJJP/011443] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1725/2023 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 08:23:43 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:27:30 AM)

[2023/RJJP/011443] (2 of 2) [CW-1725/2023] 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 “1/21 part of 5/6 part of Khasra Nos.688, 695, 696, 698, 699, 702, 703, 704, 707-713, 722-727, 729, 731/2350, 732-736, 737/2352 & 737/2353 (having total area of 2.30 hectare) in Village – Kukas, Tehsil – 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/19 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 25/05/2023 at 08:23:43 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:27:30 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →