Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Pallavi Mishra vs Dy Commissioner And Anr on 6 July, 2018
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writs No. 19132/2017
Smt Pallavi Mishra
----Petitioner
Versus
Dy Commissioner And Anr
----Respondent
(2) S.B. Civil Writs No. 10853/2018 Ms Avijit Agro Pvt Ltd And Anr
----Petitioner Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors
----Respondent (3) S.B. Civil Writs No. 10852/2018 Ms Epic Vyapaar Pvt Ltd And Anr
----Petitioner Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors
----Respondent (4) S.B. Civil Writs No. 21751/2017 M/s Amar Pratap Developers Pvt Ltd Andanr
----Petitioner Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr
----Respondent (5) S.B. Civil Writs No. 12580/2018 Jaspal Singh
----Petitioner Versus Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax And Ors
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Daulat Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Taneja, Adv., Mr. Achintya Kaushik, Adv.
(2 of 3) [CW-19132/2017] For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Adv. With Mr. Nikhil
Simlote, Adv., Ms. Tanvi Sahai, Adv., Mr. Ankit Popli, Adv., Mr. Prabhansh Pareek, Adv., Mr. Kesawat Sharma, Adv, Mr. Iskhund, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 06/07/2018 Learned Senior Counsel submits that the issue involved in the present cases is identical to the issue involved in SB Civil Writ Petition No.15978/2017 and the interim order passed in the said case be made applicable in the present cases also.
Faced with the information that the Division Bench has directed that the interim order passed by this Court shall not be treated as a precedent, learned senior counsel submits that the very purpose of filing these writ petitions would be rendered otiose if the adjudicating authority passes an order on the reference made by the competent authority. It is submitted that the competent authority has sent the proceedings to the adjudicating authority after the respondents were served with copy of the writ petition. It is submitted that the amended Benami Act does not have a retrospective operation as Section 3 of the Act prohibits Benami transactions have not been given retrospectively under the Act.
The matter requires consideration. Taking into consideration the order passed by the Division Bench not to treat the earlier order as a precedent and also taking into consideration that this Court has to examine the issue finally (3 of 3) [CW-19132/2017] and keeping in view that if any final order is passed by the Adjudicating Authority, the subject matter before this Court would be rendered otiose, it is deemed appropriate to direct that the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority may continue, however, no final order shall be passed in the cases.
List all these cases on 31st July, 2018 alongwith SB Civil Writ Petition No.15978/2017. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Raghu/R.Vaishnav 58, 79-81, 154.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)