SANDEEP KUMAR S/O SHRI BHAGVANA RAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/21624/2026HC RajasthanRJHC02103182202629 October 2026Author: SANJAY K. AGRAWAL,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court set aside the impugned order dated 07.07.2026. The Court found that the Appellate Authority had rejected the petitioner's application for stay without considering the question of hardship. The Court observed that the Appellate Authority had straightaway rejected the application for not depositing the 20% pre-deposit and had not considered the hardships raised by the petitioner. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh application highlighting his hardships in depositing the 20% amount, along with an affidavit and other documents. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider this fresh application in accordance with law within 30 days of its filing, and to consider the application for stay before proceeding with recovery. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 07.07.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority. This order rejected his application for a stay during the pendency of his statutory appeal. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority failed to consider his hardship, specifically that he had lost his job and lacked the means to pay the pre-deposit of 20% of the demand, amounting to Rs. 4,52,278. The Revenue supported the impugned order. The High Court examined the submissions and the record, including the impugned order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's application for stay without considering the issue of hardship, particularly in light of the petitioner losing his job and facing financial constraints to meet the 20% pre-deposit requirement? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the hardship he faced due to job loss and his inability to pay the Rs. 4,52,278 pre-deposit. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting his stay application should be set aside. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2026:RJ-JP:43968-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21624/2026 CNR: RJHC021031822026 | URN: CW / 45401U / 2026 Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Bhagvana Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No 2 Jatawas, Bagar, Mandrella Road Jatawas, Bagar Jhunjhunu 333023, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jhunjhunu, Behind Collectorate, Mandawa Road, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, 333001. 2. The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac), Delhi Through The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Office Of The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Nafac), Delhi, Room No. 356, C.r. Building, Ip, Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarak Ahuja For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak with Ms. Jaya P. Pathak & Ms. Dhairya Agarwal HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order 29/10/2026

1.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.07.2026, by which the petitioner’s application for stay during the pendency of his statutory appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority finding no merit.

[2026:RJ-JP:43968-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-21624/2026]

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question of hardship has not been considered as he had lost his job and he has no means to pay Rs.4,52,278/-, which is pre-deposit of 20% of the demand, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

3.

Mr. Sandeep Pathak, learned counsel for the Revenue, on advance copy, would support the impugned order.

4.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and gone through the relevant record of the case, including the impugned order.

5.

A careful perusal of the impugned order show that straightaway petitioner’s application has been rejected by the Appellate Authority holding that 20% pre-deposit of the demand has not been deposited and the question of hardships raised by the petitioner has not been considered, therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority. The petitioner will file a fresh application highlighting his hardships of depositing 20% amount of the demand along with the affidavit and other documents, which will be considered, afresh, in accordance with law within next 30 days from the date of filing of the application. Before proceeding further for the recovery, the application for grant of stay will be considered.

6.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J (SANJAY K. AGRAWAL),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/DA-4

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →