HANS RAJ DHANKAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court observed that once directions are issued by the Court, concerned authorities are bound to comply unless the order is stayed by a superior court. It noted that the petitioner's bank accounts were still frozen despite the Court's order restraining coercive recovery. Consequently, the Court directed the concerned Revenue authorities to inform the banks to vacate the attachments/freezing orders pertaining to the demands under appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2014-15 to 2017-18. The applications were disposed of in these terms.
What were the facts?
The petitioners, Hans Raj Dhankar, filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging the Revenue's actions. The High Court had previously disposed of these petitions by directing the Revenue not to take any coercive steps for recovery of demands arising from assessment orders, pending the disposal of the petitioner's appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Despite this order, the petitioner's bank accounts remained frozen at the instance of the Revenue. The present applications were filed seeking directions for the Revenue to comply with the earlier order dated 27.03.2025.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Revenue is in compliance with the High Court's previous order dated 27.03.2025, which restrained coercive recovery actions pending appeal disposal? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the Revenue was not complying with the Court's order as their bank accounts continued to be frozen, necessitating the present applications for compliance directions. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice. No specific arguments were recorded for the Revenue regarding the alleged non-compliance or the freezing of bank accounts.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
$~70 to 73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3408/2025 HANS RAJ DHANKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.SC with Ms. Monica Benjaminh, Jr.SC & Ms. Easha Kadian, Jr.SC. AND + W.P.(C) 3411/2025 HANS RAJ DHANKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.SC with Ms. Monica Benjaminh, Jr.SC & Ms. Easha Kadian, Jr.SC. AND + W.P.(C) 3412/2025 HANS RAJ DHANKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.SC with Ms. Monica Benjaminh, Jr.SC & Ms. Easha Kadian, Jr.SC. AND + W.P.(C) 3421/2025 HANS RAJ DHANKAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanshu Upadhyay, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:23:04
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Sr.SC with Ms. Monica Benjaminh, Jr.SC & Ms. Easha Kadian, Jr.SC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA O R D E R % 01.05.2025 CM APPL. 26126/2025 in W.P.(C) 3408/2025 CM APPL. 26069/2025 in W.P.(C) 3411/2025 CM APPL. 26127/2025 in W.P.(C) 3412/2025 CM APPL. 26068/2025 in W.P.(C) 3421/2025 1. Issue notice. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice. 3. The petitioners have filed the present applications, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the respondent to comply with the order dated 27.03.2025. Clearly, no such directions can be issued because once the Court has issued directions, the concerned authorities are required to comply with the same, unless the orders are stayed by a superior court. 4. In the present case, this Court had disposed of the above captioned petitions restraining the Revenue from taking any steps (coercive or otherwise) for recovery of the demand pursuant to the assessment order, till the disposal of the appeals preferred by the petitioner. Notwithstanding the said order, the petitioner’s bank accounts continue to be frozen at the instance of the Revenue. 5. In view of the above, we direct the concerned authorities to inform the bank to vacate the attachments/freezing order pursuant to the demand raised, which are subject matter of appeals preferred by the petitioner before the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:23:04
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2014-15 to 2017-18. 6. The applications are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. VIBHU BAKHRU, J TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 1, 2025 RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 00:23:04
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Biswanath Pradhan vs. The Principal Commnr., CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ritika Ispat PVT. LTD.,Balanda, Sundergarh vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Sai Jagannath, Rourkela, Sundargarh vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- M/S.Shree Construction, Khordha vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
