INDERJEET KAUR SAHNI vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF INCOME TAXandANR

PDF · subscribers
CW/4209/2017HC RajasthanRJHC02021051201728 March 2017Bench: K. S. JHAVERI1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the present writ petition should be dismissed, following the precedent set by the dismissal of a similar writ petition filed by Surendra Pal Singh Sahni. The Court noted that the earlier judgment, which dismissed the writ petition of Surendra Pal Singh Sahni, had not been interfered with by the Division Bench. Therefore, the present writ petition was ordered to be governed by that judgment. The reasoning is based on the principle of judicial precedent, where similar matters are decided consistently. The operative direction is the dismissal of the writ petition. No specific issues were decided on merits as the case was disposed of based on the earlier order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Inderjeet Kaur Sahni, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition was filed against the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) and the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota. The specific order or action being challenged is not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that a similar writ petition filed by Surendra Pal Singh Sahni (presumably related to the assessee) was dismissed by the same Court on March 28, 2017. This dismissal was not interfered with by the Division Bench. The present writ petition was ordered to be governed by the judgment in the case of Surendra Pal Singh Sahni.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the Court was whether the present writ petition should be dismissed in light of a similar writ petition filed by Surendra Pal Singh Sahni, which was previously dismissed by the same Court and upheld by the Division Bench. The Court needed to decide if the facts and circumstances warranted a different outcome for Inderjeet Kaur Sahni's petition. The assessee's side, represented by Mr. Suresh Sahni and Mr. RM Sharma, did not present any arguments as the Court directly referred to the previous judgment. The revenue's side's contentions are not recorded, as the Court's decision was based on precedent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4209 / 2017 Inderjeet Kaur Sahni W/o. Mr. Surendra Pal Singh Sahni,, Aged About 57 Years, Ruber Factpry Road, Rajendra Vila, Kota Junction, Kota (Rajasthan) Versus 1. The Director General of Income Tax (Investigation),, C R Building, Near Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur ab. ??&{ -LJ j f% 2. The Assistant ~o,min~ssl-d~er~of -lncom a% Central Circle 4t 'i {aT& Kota,, Room ~o<+f&2,-~entral bm- %- Revenue Build~,mg,:,Rawatbhata Road, Kota ( R a j a ~ t h a n ) ~ . s" '4" "6 , a9 . -. "'Ari. b a n ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Suresh Sahni with Mr.RM Sharma 4" .eri a For Respondent(s) : i r - u" C. .,. r Z - "& 4 fw- * -; .. 2 ., -,- - .. s, !,A', .. ,- . . r e* ,&"~*-**,* 7. :,.,+. . < ., 28/03/2017 enough to $[; 1%. ., submit that similar writ .* pet~tron . . was *dismissed by this Court on .~*-%I..+ -I*";" ** .&~ ?(,- **,&!< 3~ ';, s.. R.n * 8% : . .q' , , . .A. . 8- ..$is r Ogth March , 20 17 in \he_ ~ a s e ~ ; p , t ~ ~ ~ u q e n d ~ a : f ~ a l .12d. Singh Sahni Vs. 1 '4 1, "" .- - X * ' i %*" ..- b&k..&d&.. $&JJ%# The Director Genera~'~$&$~~~.~~~a~;(Investigation) & Anr. in SB Civil Writ P ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ @ o ? 3 ~ 2 1 f i 2 0 1 7 . The judgment -4 '4 rpiyi 4\*3 aforesaid has not been interfered .by the Division Bench. I n view of above, this writ petition is also dismissed and is ordered to be governed by the judgment in the case of Surendra Pal Singh (supra). (M.N. BHANDAR1)J. Preeti, PA161 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (D.B. SAW/572/2017 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Uploaded on 06/10/2023 at 04:28:53 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:20:34 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →