VARDHMAN POLYMERS PVT LTD. vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/8695/2021HC RajasthanRJHC02051032202127 January 2025Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that there was a factual error in the impugned order dated 05.08.2021, as it was passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner on 31.07.2021. The Court found that the order erroneously stated that no reply was filed. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur (Respondent No.1) to decide the issue of transfer afresh in accordance with law. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Principal Commissioner on 24.02.2025 at 11:00 A.M. to avoid further delay.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Vardhman Polymers Pvt Ltd. and its Director Ashok Jain, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.08.2021, which transferred their case jurisdiction from DCIT Circle-4, Jaipur-2 to DCIT Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai. The primary ground for the challenge was that the transfer order erroneously stated that no reply was filed to the show cause notice (SCN) issued for the transfer, despite the petitioner having filed an online reply on 31.07.2021. The respondents' counsel did not dispute the fact that a reply was indeed filed online by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order transferring the jurisdiction of the petitioner's case from DCIT Circle-4, Jaipur-2 to DCIT Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the impugned transfer order is factually incorrect as it states no reply was filed to the show cause notice, whereas an online reply was duly submitted on 31.07.2021. The order was therefore passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without considering the material placed before the authority. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, did not dispute the fact that the petitioner had filed an online reply on 31.07.2021.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:3795-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8695/2021 1. Vardhman Polymers Pvt Ltd., D-118, Sethi Colony, Jaipur- 302004 Through Its Director Ashok Jain S/o Jayanti Prasad Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Jain Krishi Farm, Jaipur Road, Alwar (Raj.) 2. Ashok Jain S/o Jayanti Prasad, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Jain Krishi Farm, Jaipur Road, Alwar (Raj.) Director, Vardhman Polymers Pvt. Ltd. D-118, Sethi Colony, Jaipur-302004. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-I, Room No. 424, Ayakar Bhawan, M.k. Road, Mumbai-400020 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-Iv, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai. 5. Joint Director Of Income Tax (Inv) Osd, Dd-It Investigation-I, Udaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashish Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order 27/01/2025

1.

This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 05.08.2021 transferring the case of the petitioner from DCIT Circle-4, Jaipur-2 to DCIT Central Circle-2(2), Mumbai. The

[2025:RJ-JP:3795-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-8695/2021] challenge to the transfer order was on the ground that inspite of online reply filed on 31.07.2021 to the show cause notice (for short ‘SCN’) issued for transferring the jurisdiction, the impugned order has been passed stating that no reply was filed.

2.

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the fact that the petitioner has filed online reply on 31.07.2021. 3. There is a factual error in the impugned order and it has been passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 to decide the issue of transfer afresh in accordance with law.

4.

In order to avoid further delay, let the petitioners through their representatives appear before the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur on 24.02.2025 at 11:00 A.M. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/Tanisha/30

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →