RAJESH GHISALAL BAMB S/O SHRI GHISALAL MANAKCHAND BAMB vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

CW/7384/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02038055202216 May 2022Author: PRAKASH GUPTA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court acknowledged the grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner concerning the non-consideration of his representations dated March 8, 2019, and April 7, 2022. The court found it appropriate to direct the concerned authorities to consider the said representations. The court mandated that an opportunity of hearing be granted to the petitioner before a decision is taken. The entire exercise is to be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The High Court did not delve into the merits of the jurisdictional change or the refund claim itself, focusing solely on ensuring the representations are processed. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court's direction was to consider the representations.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajesh Ghisalal Bamb, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petition was filed due to the non-consideration of his representations dated March 8, 2019, and April 7, 2022. The petitioner stated that his requests for a jurisdictional change and his claim for a refund have not been addressed by the Income Tax authorities. The respondents include the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Jaipur, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT) - 2, Jaipur, and other income tax authorities from Mumbai and Bengaluru, as well as the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Income Tax authorities have failed to consider the representations made by the petitioner regarding a jurisdictional change and a refund claim, thereby violating his rights? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning the duty of the revenue to act upon taxpayer representations). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that despite filing representations on multiple occasions, the concerned income tax authorities have failed to consider his requests for a jurisdictional change and his claim for a refund. This inaction has led to the filing of the present writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue's side regarding the merits of the petitioner's representations or the reasons for the delay in their consideration. The focus of the judgment is on directing the authorities to act.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 738412022 Rajesh Ghisalal Bamb Slo Shri Ghisalal Manakchand Bamb, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of C-127-A, Ashirwad, Dayanand Marg, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan, India Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Wa,rd 6(1), Jaipur, Having Office At ' ?I % 8 .-.* New Central Re'Qen-u-e: E.uil.cjijpg)fNear Statue Circle, Jaipur fC .F--$-J" - 3020053Ra~asthan~ India "'-$;$.a;"' q $7 psc :." \"e 6.3 2. Prin~ipal~Commissioner Of Income Tax (P,c~IP)&- 2, Jaipur, 5" F J.. Ha.vi.ng Office At Room No. 111, New Cent-ra.l~Revenue Yt, *%b& ;@wilding, Near Statue Circle, Jaipur - 302005, .Raja.sthan, 9 4" India 3. Mumbai, Having Office At Room No Bhavan, Maharishi shtra, India 4. e Tax (Pcit) - 15, ar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mu shtra, India 5. pc), Bengaluru, Having g Centre, Income Tax Karnataka, India, 6. Central Board Ministry Of Finance, elhi, India, Through For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat with Mr. Prateek Barla HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN (2 of 2)

Order Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on account of the fact that his representatives fii,ed, as back as, on 08.03.2019 and as recent as representation dated 07.04.2022 have not been considered. He submits that neither his .,.-% h,'N M f f ? p requests for jurisdrct~o~al- crange have.2b4eeb addressed nor the &$* 4 p{ L.J claim of refunbhas been looked into. "a f A>. ideration of the said writ petition and,Viing the A ised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we deem it appropriate t 2 to consider the said representation and after granting an opportunity of hear ithin a period of four weeks from the date of opy of this order.

In the light of isposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J MohitIKeshav Ghiya/148

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →