RAM KRIPAL SISODIA S/O SH. SULTAN SHAH SISODIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/4364/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02017448202323 April 2025Bench: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,ANAND SHARMA2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that both the counsel for the petitioner Ramdhan Meena and the counsel for the Union of India agreed that the writ petition had become infructuous. This agreement was based on the Supreme Court's decision in "Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited". Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition as such. No specific findings were made on the merits of the attachment or the underlying tax dispute. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as infructuous, with the understanding that 'consequences shall follow'.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Ram Kripal Sisodia and Ramdhan Meena, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and another) to instruct the Tehsildar – Amer to revoke/remove an attachment entry in revenue records concerning their immovable and movable properties. The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. By an order dated May 15, 2024, the writ petition concerning Ram Kripal Sisodia was dismissed. The remaining petitioner, Ramdhan Meena, and the respondents agreed that the writ petition had become infructuous.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable in light of the subsequent developments and Supreme Court decisions? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners sought a writ of Mandamus to remove property attachments. The specific arguments for Ramdhan Meena are not detailed, but the overall prayer was for relief concerning property attachments. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by Mr. Siddharth Bapna, argued that the writ petition had become infructuous. They relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (Civil) No. 359 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 titled “Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited”.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4364/2023 Ram Kripal Sisodia Son of Shri Sultan Shah & Another ----Petitioners Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Jain Advocate. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 23/04/2025 1. Mr. Ram Kripal Sisodia and Mr. Ramdhan Meena approach this Court with the following prayers:- “In light of the facts and circumstances of the case, averments made hereinabove as well as the settled legal position, it is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the instant writ petition and - a) Issue writ in the nature of Mandamus of any other appropriate Writ or Order directing the Respondents to issue appropriate instructions to the concerned Revenue Authority i.e. Tehsildar – Amer [Dist. - Jaipur] for revoking/removing the entry of attachment reflecting the Revenue Records in respect of the immovable and movable properties enumertated in Para 11 of this Writ Petition; and b) Direct the Respondents to pay costs of the present writ petition to the petitioners; and c) Grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the present facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. By an order dated 15th May 2024, the writ petition qua Ram Kripal Sisodia was dismissed. 3. Mr. Javed Khan, the learned counsel appearing for Ramdhan Meena and Mr. Siddharth Bapna, the learned counsel appearing for

(2 of 2) [CW-4364/2023] Union of India agree that by virtue of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Review Petition (Civil) No. 359 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 5783 of 2022 titled “Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/s Ganpati Dealcom Private Limited”, the present writ petition has become infructuous. 4. Disposed of as such. 5. Needless to indicate that the consequences shall follow.

(ANAND SHARMA),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J DIVYA SAINI /109

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →