EMMTHREE FINANCIAL SERVICE PVT vs. COMMI OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

CW/7971/2010HC Rajasthan2026:RJ-JP:19578-DB08 May 2026Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, BIPIN GUPTA1 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, dismissed the writ petition. The primary reason for the dismissal was that the learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded 'no instruction' in the matter. This signifies that the petitioner's legal representative was unable to present any arguments or guidance on behalf of the petitioner. Consequently, the Court found itself unable to proceed with the case on its merits. The judgment does not delve into the substantive issues that might have been raised in the writ petition. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition and consign it to the record. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the petition was disposed of on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Emmthree Financial Service Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The respondents included the Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar, the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.2(3), Alwar, the Tehsildar, Tehsil Hurda, District Bhilwara, and M/s Aditi Venture Private Limited. The writ petition was filed challenging an order or action, though the specific nature of the challenge and the assessment year(s) are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history is limited to the filing of the writ petition and the subsequent proceedings before the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the counsel for the petitioner pleading no instruction in the matter. This is a procedural issue arising from the conduct of the petitioner's legal representation. Contentions: Assessee (Petitioner): The petitioner's counsel stated they had no instruction in the matter. No specific arguments were presented by the petitioner's counsel regarding the merits of the case or the maintainability of the petition beyond the statement of no instruction. Revenue (Respondents): The respondents were represented by counsel, but their arguments are not recorded in the provided judgment excerpt. The judgment does not mention any specific contentions raised by the revenue authorities.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2026:RJ-JP:19578-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7971/2010 Emmthree Financial Service Private Limited, (A company incorporated under Companies Act, 1956) 106, Guru Arjun Deo Bhawan, Ranjeet Singh Commercial Complex, New-Delhi. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Commissioner of Income Tax, Alwar (Rajasthan). 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward No.2(3) Alwar (Rajasthan). 3. Tehsildar, Tehsil Hurda District Bhilwara (Rajasthan). 4. M/s Aditi Venture Private Limited, 4, Bank Colony, Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Gupta with Mr. Jaspal Singh on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Maheshwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain with Ms. Kriti Kalawatia HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 08/05/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleads no instruction in the matter. 2. In view thereto, the writ petition is dismissed and consigned to record. (BIPIN GUPTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/24 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 13/05/2026 at 08:40:49 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:21:37 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →