RUCHI BHARATARIYA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/4309/2018HC RajasthanRJHC02033319201810 March 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. The learned counsel for the respondent (revenue) informed the court that, as of the date of the order, prosecution had not yet been initiated against the petitioners. In light of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they were not pressing the petitions. They sought liberty to avail appropriate remedies in the future if the need arose. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petitions as not pressed, while granting the petitioners the liberty to pursue further legal recourse as advised. No specific findings were made on the substantive issues that might have been raised had the petitions been pressed.

What were the facts?

These are six connected Civil Writ Petitions filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petitioners are Anoop Bharatariya (Chairman Cum Managing Director of World Trade Park), Ruchi Bharatariya (Director of World Trade Park), and World Trade Park Ltd. The respondent in all petitions is the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax or the Commissioner of Income-Tax TDS. The petitions challenge actions or potential actions by the revenue authorities. The core of the dispute appears to relate to potential prosecution proceedings initiated or contemplated by the Income Tax Department against the petitioners. The procedural history indicates that the petitions were filed seeking relief against these actions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the petitioners were entitled to any relief concerning potential prosecution proceedings initiated or contemplated by the Income Tax Department. The petitioners, represented by Mr. Dileep Shivpuri, likely sought to prevent or challenge these proceedings. The revenue, represented by Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Mr. Aditya Doda, and Mr. Parth Vasistha, would have defended the actions or the right to initiate prosecution. The judgment does not explicitly frame these as numbered questions of law or mixed law and fact, nor does it detail specific arguments or precedents cited by either side beyond the general nature of the dispute concerning prosecution. However, the underlying question pertains to the legality and procedural propriety of the revenue's actions leading to potential prosecution.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:10708-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3475/2018 Anoop Bharatariya Chairman Cum Managing Director, World Trade Park, Jln Marg, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3474/2018 Ruchi Bharatariya, Director World Trade Park, Jln Marg, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3476/2018 World Trade Park Ltd. Jln Marg, Jaipur Through Shri Anoop Bharatariya Chairnam Cum Managing Directo ----Petitioner Versus The Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4309/2018 Ruchi Bharatariya, Director, M/s World Trade Park, Jln Marg, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Tds Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4329/2018 Anoop Bharatariya, Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, M/s World

[2025:RJ-JP:10708-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-3475/2018] Trade Park Ltd., Jln Marg, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus The Commissioner Of Income-Tax Tds, Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Shivpuri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shantanu Sharma with Mr. Aditya Doda Mr. Parth Vasistha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 10/03/2025 Learned counsel for respondent on instructions received from the department submits that till date prosecution has not been initiated. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioners is not pressing these petitions with liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law, in case need so arises. The petitions are dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Chandan/Deepa-23-27

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →