ABHA JAIN W/O SHRI RAJ KUMAR JAIN vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)-1
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that a diligent officer would have forwarded the application to the correct 'Central' Circle-4. The Court directed the respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4) to treat the petition itself as an application for the release of seized items. The application is to be disposed of within four weeks of the order being uploaded. The Court further stipulated that a personal hearing must be given to the petitioner, with notice communicated at least five working days in advance. The Court explicitly clarified that no observations were made on the merits of the matter. The petition was disposed of on this procedural direction.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Abha Jain, filed an application dated February 14, 2025, for the release of seized items. The application was addressed to the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-4. The respondents, Assistant Director of Income Tax (Inv.)-1 and Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, raised a technical objection that the application should have been addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Circle-4, with the word 'Central' included. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, heard the matter.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the application for release of seized items, addressed to the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-4, is invalid due to the omission of the word 'Central' from the designation of the respondent authority, thereby constituting a procedural defect. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly argues that the omission of the word 'Central' is a minor technicality that should not invalidate the application, especially given the intent of the application was clear. The petitioner seeks the release of seized items. Revenue's Contention: The respondents contend that the application was improperly addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, instead of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Circle-4, and this technicality is a bar to processing the application.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 26/08/2025
A technical objection is the only problem that respondents raised i.e. application dated 14th February 2025 has been given to Assessing Officer, DCIT, Circle-4, whereas it should have been given to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, Circle-4. The only difference is that the word “Central” is missing.
A diligent officer, in our view, would have forwarded it to the table of “Central” Circle-4. 3. We direct respondent No.2 to treat this petition itself as an application for release of seized items. Application shall be
[2025:RJ-JP:33895-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-5414/2025] disposed within four weeks of this order being uploaded and non- receipt of a copy of this order shall be no excuse for not disposing the application.
Mr. Bapna, counsel for respondents states that he shall inform the concerned officer.
Before passing order, a personal hearing shall be given, notice whereof shall be communicated at least five working days in advance.
Petition disposed.
We clarify we have not made any observation on merits of the matter. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- Korba Steel Castings vs. State Of ChhattisgarhChhattisgarh · 29 Oct 2026
