SHIV KUMAR SONI S/O SHRI NAVAL KUMAR SONI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/3333/2020HC RajasthanRJHC02016311202010 February 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR2 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions without commenting on the merits of the case. The Court took into account that interim protection had been in favour of the petitioner since 2020 and that the appeal had not been decided for over four years. Consequently, the petitions were disposed of with a direction to the first Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The interim protection granted to the petitioner was directed to continue until the appeal was heard.

What were the facts?

These two writ petitions, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3333/2020 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9485/2019, involve similar facts. The first petition challenges an order dated 07.02.2020, which directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the demand created. Interim protection was granted to the petitioner when notice was issued on 27.02.2020. The petitions are being decided together due to the similarity of facts. The court noted that the appeals have not been decided for over four years despite the interim protection.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging an order directing the deposit of 20% of a tax demand when an appeal mechanism is available. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner seeks intervention from the High Court due to the delay in the appellate process and the existence of interim protection. The petitioner implicitly argues that the delay in deciding the appeal warrants the High Court's intervention. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's contention is not explicitly recorded in the provided judgment. However, the existence of an appeal mechanism suggests an argument that the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner should exhaust the statutory remedy.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:5781-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3333/2020 Shiv Kumar Soni S/o Shri Naval Kumar Soni, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of 348, Mangla Marg, Brahmpuri, Jaipur 302002. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Having Its Office At New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9485/2019 Subhash Pareta, Prop. M/s. Pareta Associates, Having Its Address At House No. 3/148, Ganesh Talab, Kota In The State Of Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, Kota Having Its Office At Central Revenue Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 2. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kota Having Its Office At Central Revenue Building, Rawat Bhata Road, Kota 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi Through Its Chairman ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apeksha Bapna with Mr. Rohan Chatter for Mr. Siddharth Ranka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Rahul Kumar in 3333/2020 Mr. Aditya Doda with Mr. Parth Vashishtha for

[2025:RJ-JP:5781-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3333/2020] Mr. Shantanu Sharma in 9485/2019 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 10/02/2025 1. These petitions are being decided by common order as the facts involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3333/2020. 2. This petition is filed aggrieved of the order dated 07.02.2020 directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the demand created. 3. While issuing notice of motion on 27.02.2020, interim protection was granted to the petitioner. 4. Without commenting upon merits of the case, taking into account that there is interim protection in favour of the petitioner since 2020 and for more than last four years, the appeal has not been decided, the petitions are disposed of with direction to the first Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The interim protection shall continue till the appeal is heard. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /186 & 192

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →