DEEPSHIKHA KALA SANSTHAN vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)

CW/22384/2018HC RajasthanRJHC02094533201826 May 2025Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MUKESH RAJPUROHIT3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged that the petitioner had already deposited 20% of the disputed demand, amounting to Rs. 63,10,265/-. The court noted its consistent practice in similar cases of passing interim orders staying the demand except for 20% of the total recovery amount. Consequently, the court directed that the order dated 12.10.2018, which stayed the insistence on monthly installments of Rs. 10,000,00/-, would continue until the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (CIT(E)). The CIT(E) was directed to endeavor to decide the appeal within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. No unwarranted adjournments were to be granted to either party. The issue of the validity of the demand beyond 20% was implicitly addressed by continuing the interim order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Deepshikha Kala Sansthan, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging an order dated 29.08.2018. This order directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- every month. The petitioner's grievance was that despite depositing 20% of the demand, the Income Tax Department insisted on further payments, which the petitioner contended was in violation of the office memorandum dated 29.02.2016. The High Court, on 12.10.2018, noted that the assessee had already deposited Rs. 63,10,265/-, which was 20% of the disputed demand. The court also noted that the appeal was pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions). The petition was ultimately disposed of with directions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the respondent-department's insistence on further monthly deposits of Rs. 10,00,000/- is arbitrary and contrary to the office memorandum dated 29.02.2016, especially when 20% of the disputed demand has already been deposited by the petitioner-assessee? (Question of law and fact, concerning compliance with departmental instructions). Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the demand for further monthly installments of Rs. 10,00,000/- was arbitrary and contrary to the office memorandum dated 29.02.2016, which prescribes a deposit of 20% of the disputed demand. They relied on the fact that they had already deposited Rs. 63,10,265/-, representing 20% of the demand. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent submitted that the petitioner was required to pay the demand raised and that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of approaching the authority as prescribed in the office memorandum if they intended to challenge the order. They sought time to file a reply.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:21972-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22384/2018 Deepshikha Kala Sansthan, Having Its Registered Address At Sector 3, Varun Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur 302020 In The State Of Rajasthan Through Its President Shri Prem Surana. ----Petitioner Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax (Exemptions), Jaipur Having Its Office At Kailash Heights, 3Rd Floor, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302015 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apeksha Bapna & Mr. Rohan Chatter for Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Doda & Mr. Parth Vashishtha for Mr. Shantanu Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order 26/05/2025

This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 29.08.2018 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.10,00,000/- every month.

The grievance raised is that inspite of deposit of 20% of the demand created, the department insisted upon further deposit which is in violation of the office memorandum dated 29.02.2016. 3. On 12.10.2018 following order was passed:- “Matter comes up on the misc. stay application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the assessee has already deposited a sum of Rs.63,10,265/- i.e. 20% of disputed demand, the requirement of which

[2025:RJ-JP:21972-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-22384/2018] the Income Tax Department itself has prescribed as per office memorandum dt.29.02.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that insistence of the Department to further pay installment of Rs.10,00,000/- each month is prima facie arbitrary and contrary to the office memorandum. Mr. Sameer Jain, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner-assessee is required to pay the demand which has been raised while disposing of the stay application filed by the assessee. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner if, intends to challenge the order, he has alternative remedy for approaching the authority as prescribed in the office memorandum. I have heard both the parties. This Court in catena of cases has already passed interim order whereby the demand except 20% of the total recovery amount, has been stayed. This Court finds that the respondents will not insist the petitioner to make the payment of monthly installment of Rs.10,000,00/- as has been communicated to the petitioner vide order dt.29.08.2018 (Annex.8). Counsel for the respondents seeks time to file reply. Three weeks time is granted to file reply, List thereafter.”

The Court has been apprised that till date, the appeal is pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) (for short ‘CIT(E)’).

The petition is disposed of with direction that the order dated 12.10.2018 shall continue till disposal of the appeal by the CIT(E). The CIT(E) shall make an endeavour to decide the appeal within six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

[2025:RJ-JP:21972-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-22384/2018]

In any case, no unwarranted adjournments shall be granted to either of the parties. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/Garima/39

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →