VINAYAK GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/3446/2026HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JP:22844-DB27 May 2026Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition. The Court noted that despite the clear direction issued on 05.05.2026, requiring the petitioner to amend their writ petition by 25.05.2026, the petitioner failed to comply with this order within the stipulated time. Consequently, the Court found no alternative but to dismiss the petition. The reasoning is based on the principle that litigants must adhere to court orders and procedural timelines. Failure to do so, without any valid explanation or amendment filed, leads to the dismissal of the case. All pending applications associated with the writ petition were also dismissed as a consequence of the main petition's dismissal. No specific findings were made on the merits of the underlying tax dispute.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vinayak Gems Private Limited, through its Director Aashish Agarwal, filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 3446/2026 before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The respondent was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur. On 05.05.2026, the Court directed petitioners to amend their petitions within four weeks, by 25.05.2026, in light of a Supreme Court judgment in SLP (C). Diary No(s). 2196/2026, titled Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Tej Partap Singh. The matter was listed for 27.05.2026, with any interim orders to continue. However, the petitioner failed to file the amended writ petition within the stipulated time.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-compliance with the Court's order dated 05.05.2026, which directed the amendment of the petition within four weeks by 25.05.2026, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Tej Partap Singh. The petitioner's side (represented by Ms. Satvika Jha and Mr. Rohan Chatter) did not present any arguments as the petition was dismissed for non-compliance. The respondent's side (represented by Mr. Siddharth Bapna and Ms. Tanushka Saxena) likely argued for the dismissal of the petition due to the petitioner's failure to adhere to the court's procedural directions. No specific provisions of the Income Tax Act were directly debated as the matter was procedural.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2026:RJ-JP:22844-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3446/2026 Vinayak Gems Private Limited, Having Its Address At E-181, Ramesh Marg, C Scheme Jaipur- 302001, Rajasthan Through Its Director Aashish Agarwal, Aged About 61 Years, S/o Shri Manohar Lal Agarwal, R/o 298, Near Hathroi Fort, Ajmer Road, Jaipur- 302001 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur Having Its Address At Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Satvika Jha and Mr. Rohan Chatter on behalf of Mr. Siddarth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Ms. Tanushka Saxena HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU (Through V.C.) Order 27/05/2026 1. This Court on 05.05.2026 has passed the following order:- “1. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (C). Diary No(s). 2196/2026, titled as Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh & Ors. Vs. Tej Partap Singh decided on 10.04.2026 and stated to have been uploaded on 28.04.2026, we give four weeks' time, as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, to the respective petitioners in each of the writ petitions listed before us to amend their petitions on or before 25.05.2026, if they so choose to. 2. List these cases on 27.05.2026. 3. Interim order, if any, shall continue till next date of hearing.” 2. Despite the aforesaid direction, the petitioner has not filed the amended writ petition within the stipulated time. 3. In view of above, the present writ petition stands dismissed. 4. All pending applications also stand dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ 114/DivyaP Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 09/06/2026 at 12:14:05 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:21:55 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →