M/S MANGALA ISPAT JAIPUR LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/18696/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02099330202214 May 2024Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,BHUWAN GOYAL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the petitioner had filed an appeal against the order passed under Section 148(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was pending. The Court observed that the petitioner had simultaneously challenged the correctness and validity of the same order in the writ petition. Consequently, the Court decided to leave the issue of the validity of the order open for future consideration in an appropriate case. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue their pending appeal before the appellate authority. The Court also stated that if the petitioner felt aggrieved by any order passed in the appeal, they could pursue available legal remedies.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Mangala Ispat Jaipur Limited, filed a writ petition challenging proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and also sought to assail the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Act. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed an appeal against an order passed under Section 148(d) of the Act. This appeal is currently pending consideration before the appellate authority. The petitioner had simultaneously challenged the same order in the writ petition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an appeal against the order under Section 148(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been filed and is pending consideration? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, M/s Mangala Ispat Jaipur Limited, has challenged the order and proceedings under Section 148 of the Act and sought to assail the constitutional validity of certain provisions. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Union of India, were represented. The judgment does not explicitly record their specific arguments regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or the constitutional validity, but their presence indicates opposition to the petitioner's claims.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:22842-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18696/2022 M/s Mangala Ispat Jaipur Limited, (A.y. 2018-19), Having Its Registered Office At B-234, Road No. 9, Vki Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302013 - Through Mr. Rajendra Kumar Agarwal, Its Authorized Person. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-4, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. 2. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi (Nct) - 110001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vedant Agrawal through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D.Rastogi, ASG with Mr. Devesh Yadav Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya P.Pathak HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 14/05/2024 1. Heard. 2. While this writ petition seeks to challenge the order and proceedings passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act of 1961”) as also a prayer seeking to assail constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Act of 1961, learned counsel for the petitioner informs the Court that during the pendency of this petition, the order passed under (Uploaded on 16/05/2024 at 12:16:09 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:28 AM)

[2024:RJ-JP:22842-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-18696/2022] Section 148(d) of the Income Tax Act has been assailed by filing an appeal which is pending consideration. 3. Taking into consideration that the petitioner has availed the remedy of appeal against the order passed under Section 148(d) of the Act and at the same time, the petitioner assailed the correctness and validity of that order in this writ petition, we leave the issue of validity open for consideration in future for being decided in an appropriate case. 4. At this stage, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his pending appeal before the authority. 5. It goes without saying that in case the petitioner feels aggrieved by any order that may be passed in an appeal, it will be open for him to take such remedy, as may be available to him under the law. 6. All pending applications stand disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi/Anu /46 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 16/05/2024 at 12:16:09 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:28 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →