INCOME TAX CONTINGENT EMPLOYEES UNION vs. UNION OF INDIA
What did the High Court hold?
The Court found that the petitioner's counsel had failed to comply with the order dated 23.03.2022. The documents filed in support of the interlocutory application, which were photostat copies of purported meetings/resolutions, were not supported by an affidavit. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had not adequately established the status of its office bearers or provided the required certified copy of the impugned judgment. As a result of this non-compliance, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution. No decision was made on the merits of the underlying dispute.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, the Income Tax Contingent Employees Union and one of its members, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. The respondents were the Union of India and the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. On March 23, 2022, the Court directed the petitioner's counsel to submit certified copies of the impugned judgment and to provide documentation establishing the status of Shri Jagdish Solanki and Shri Mahendra Singh Tak as office bearers of the petitioner Union. An interlocutory application was filed by the petitioner's counsel in response to this direction, attaching photostat copies of purported meetings and resolutions of the Union. However, these documents were not supported by an affidavit.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner's counsel has complied with the Court's order dated 23.03.2022, which required the filing of certified copies of the impugned judgment and appropriate documents to establish the status of Shri Jagdish Solanki and Shri Mahendra Singh Tak as office bearers of the petitioner Union? (Question of fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel filed an interlocutory application with photostat copies of purported meetings/resolutions in response to the Court's direction. Revenue's Contention: No arguments were recorded for the respondent.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 25/04/2022 On 23.03.2022, the Court directed the petitioner’s counsel to file certified copy of the impugned judgment and to place on record appropriate document for establishing the status of Shri Jagdish Solanki and Shri Mahendra Singh Tak as office bearers of the petitioner Union. Interlocutory application (No.03/2022) has been filed by Shri Gupta in response to the said direction. Alongwith the application, some photostat copies of purported meetings/resolutions of the petitioner Union have been filed. However, the documents are not (2 of 2) [CW-11093/2021] supported by affidavit. Apparently, thus, the petitioner’s counsel has failed to comply with the order dated 23.03.2022. The writ petition is, thus dismissed for want of prosecution. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J 11-Sudhir Asopa/Devesh/-
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Radheshyam Bhoi vs. The Comnr. Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Dharmajit Mishra vs. The Comnr. Of CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Tapan Kumar Sahu vs. The Comnr. CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Sanjeet Kumar Bagh vs. The Comn. CT. And GST, OdishaOrissa · 2 Nov 2026
- Rakesh Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 2 Nov 2026
