BIMLA KUMARI HIRAWAT W/O KAILASH CHAND HIRAWAT vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/9564/2021HC RajasthanRJHC02055288202120 May 2024Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,BHUWAN GOYAL3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, held that the issue raised in these writ petitions is squarely covered by a common order dated 19.03.2024 previously passed by a Division Bench of the same Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other connected writ petitions. Consequently, the Court allowed these petitions in similar terms as the aforementioned case. The judgment also states that liberty was granted as provided in that case. The specific findings or reasoning from the Shyam Sunder Khandelwal case that are applicable here are not detailed, nor are the operative directions beyond allowing the petitions and granting liberty. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

These are multiple writ petitions filed by various individuals including Bimla Kumari Hirawat, Mahendra Verma, Kailash Chand Hirawat, Prakash Chand Hirawat, Kalpana Khatoria, and Bitthal Das Maheswari. The respondent in all these petitions is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Jaipur. The petitions challenge orders or actions taken by the Income Tax Department. The specific assessment years and the exact nature of the orders under challenge are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history is limited to the fact that these petitions were filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitions raise issues that are squarely covered by a previous common order dated 19.03.2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019 and other connected writ petitions)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submit that the issue raised in these petitions is squarely covered by the common order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal's case. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondent revenue. It is stated that learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue is covered.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:23864-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9564/2021 Bimla Kumari Hirawat W/o Kailash Chand Hirawat, Aged About 76 Years, R/o 1183, Partanio Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4 Jaipur, Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8982/2021 Mahendra Verma S/o Late Kanhaiyalal Verma, Aged About 72 Years, R/o A-207-208, Nagar Residency, Near Rungta Hospital, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4 Jaipur, Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9530/2021 Kailash Chand Hirawat S/o Kewal Chand Hirawat, Aged About 82 Years, R/o 1183, Partanio Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4 Jaipur, Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11987/2021 Prakash Chand Hirawat S/o Late Kewal Chand Hirawat, Aged About 75 Years, R/o 1183, Partanio Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus (Uploaded on 23/05/2024 at 08:28:35 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:27 AM)

[2024:RJ-JP:23864-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-9564/2021] Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4 Jaipur, Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005 ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8757/2021 Kalpana Khatoria Daughter Of Shri Satya Narain Saraf, Aged About 50 Years, Having Her Address At 208, Khatoria Bhawan, Balaji Ka Rasta, Ghat Gate, Jaipur 302005 In The State Of Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4, Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur Currently At Room No. 416, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-Ii, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12362/2021 Bitthal Das Maheswari S/o Late Balkishan Maheshwari, Aged About 72 Years, R/o 57-C, Saraswati Villa, Vishnu Garden, Khokhawas, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302018 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 4 Jaipur, Income Tax, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma for Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Vrinda Laichotia through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddarath Bapna Mr. Sarvesh Jain with Mr. Meyhul Miittal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order (Uploaded on 23/05/2024 at 08:28:35 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:27 AM)

[2024:RJ-JP:23864-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-9564/2021] 20/05/2024 Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue raised in these petitions is squarely covered by common order dated 19.03.2024 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.18363/2019 and other connected writ petitions). Accordingly, these petitions are also allowed in similar terms with liberty as stated in that case. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi/Anu /115-120 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 23/05/2024 at 08:28:35 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:41:27 AM)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →