ANOOP BHARATARIYA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/4329/2018HC RajasthanRJHC02033354201810 March 2025Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the merits of any substantive issue. The learned counsel for the respondent revenue, on instructions, submitted that prosecution had not been initiated till date. In light of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they were not pressing the petitions. The Court, therefore, dismissed the petitions as not pressed, granting liberty to the petitioners to avail remedies in accordance with law if the need arises in the future. No specific finding was given on the legality of any action by the revenue, nor was any amount in dispute quantified or decided. The principle that can be derived is that a High Court may permit withdrawal of a writ petition if the respondent states that the action complained of has not yet been initiated, and the petitioner seeks to withdraw with liberty to approach the court again if the situation so warrants.

What were the facts?

These are six consolidated writ petitions filed by Anoop Bharatariya (Chairman-Cum-Managing Director of World Trade Park Ltd.), Ruchi Bharatariya (Director of World Trade Park Ltd.), and World Trade Park Ltd. itself. The petitions challenge actions taken by the Income Tax Department. The specific nature of the challenge and the assessment years are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The procedural history involves the petitioners approaching the High Court. The respondent is the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and the Commissioner of Income-Tax (TDS). The core of the dispute revolves around potential prosecution proceedings initiated or contemplated by the revenue against the petitioners.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain writ petitions concerning potential prosecution proceedings initiated under the Income Tax Act, 1961, before such proceedings have formally commenced. Assessee's Contention: The petitioners likely sought to challenge the initiation or the basis of potential prosecution proceedings, possibly arguing for premature intervention by the High Court. Specific arguments or reliance on authorities are not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The respondent revenue authorities would likely argue that the writ petitions are premature as prosecution has not yet been initiated, and the petitioners should exhaust their remedies under the Income Tax Act, 1961, once proceedings commence. Specific arguments or reliance on authorities are not recorded.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:10708-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3475/2018 Anoop Bharatariya Chairman Cum Managing Director, World Trade Park, Jln Marg, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3474/2018 Ruchi Bharatariya, Director World Trade Park, Jln Marg, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3476/2018 World Trade Park Ltd. Jln Marg, Jaipur Through Shri Anoop Bharatariya Chairnam Cum Managing Directo ----Petitioner Versus The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4309/2018 Ruchi Bharatariya, Director, M/s World Trade Park, Jln Marg, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Tds Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4329/2018 Anoop Bharatariya, Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, M/s World [2025:RJ-JP:10708-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3475/2018] Trade Park Ltd., Jln Marg, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Tds, Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Shivpuri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma with Mr. Aditya Doda Mr. Parth Vasistha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 10/03/2025 Learned counsel for respondent on instructions received from the department submits that till date prosecution has not been initiated.

In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners is not pressing these petitions with liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law, in case need so arises.

The petitions are dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/Deepa-23-27

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →