M/S Amigo Hotels v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (Benamiprohibition), Jaipur, Room

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1720/2023 1. Ram Singh Meena S/o Sh. Ram Karan Meena, aged about53 years, R/o Village and Post- Mainpura, Tehsil andDistrict- Sawaimadhopur.53 years, R/o Village and Post- Mainpura, Tehsil andDistrict- Sawaimadhopur. 2. M/s Amigo Hotels, having its Office at - 409-413, 4[th]Floor, Arcade, K-12, Malviya Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur -302003 through its Partner Ram Babu Agarwal.Floor, Arcade, K-12, Malviya Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur -302003 through its Partner Ram Babu Agarwal. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (BenamiProhibition) and Initiating Officer, under PBPT Act- 1988for State of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Room No. Na-103, NewCentral Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302001.Prohibition) and Initiating Officer, under PBPT Act- 1988for State of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Room No. Na-103, NewCentral Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302001. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (BenamiProhibition), Jaipur, Room No. 250, New Central RevenueBuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur.Prohibition), Jaipur, Room No. 250, New Central RevenueBuilding, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaideep Malik on behalf of Mr. Javed Khan. For Respondent(s): Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Ms. Kriti Kalawati. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 12/12/2023 1.It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that theissue raised in the present petition has been decided by theHon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. Vs.M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. : AIR 2002 SC 4558. 2.Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that the petitioner No.1 may be entitled to seek a relief from this Courton account of the fact that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Ganpati Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has been laid down thatthe amended provisions are not retrospective. However, petitionerNo.2 is not entitled to seek any relief from this Court. 3.Further submissions have been made that review petition inrespect of the said judgments in the case of M/s Ganpati DealcomPvt. Ltd. (supra) is pending consideration before the Hon’bleSupreme Court. However, it is not disputed that the issue raised iscovered by the order passed in the case of M/s Ganpati DealcomPvt. Ltd. (supra). 4.Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that inso far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, he was impleaded as aparty, as in the order impugned, he was also shown as one of theparties. However, the petitioner No.2 in its capacity as petitioner isnot claiming any relief. 5.In view of above, the present petition is disposed of. 6.The property in dispute being 0.1506 hectare which is 5/16[th]part of land bearing Khasra No.832 (having total area of 0.05hectare) and 9/32 part of Khasra No.833/2361, 848, 849, 846(having total area of 0.48 hectare) situated at Village Kukar, Amer,Jaipur be released. Necessary steps be taken to release thedisputed property. 7.However, it is made clear that the said order is only at theinstance of the petitioner No.1 and the release of the property willbe subject to the final order that may ultimately be passed by theHon’ble Supreme Court in the pending review petition. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J