KHANNA PAPER MILLS LTD. vs. ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-1, AMRITSAR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/9299/2023HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01055241202310 September 2026Author: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Sibal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sunish Bindlish, allowed the petition based on the consensus between the parties. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India. This relief involved the quashing of the impugned notice dated 10.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of learned counsel for both the petitioner and the respondents to extend the benefit of the Jyoti Sareen judgment to the present case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and consequential proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, PER MILLS LTD., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Amritsar, and others. The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India. This previous judgment, dated 10.09.2026, had granted relief in terms of a notice dated 10.04.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The parties agreed to the same relief for the present petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, specifically concerning a notice dated 10.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. No specific legal provisions were cited by the assessee, but the argument was based on parity with a prior judicial pronouncement. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as has been granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific legal provisions were cited by the revenue, and their stance was one of consensus.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

207 207 207 207

IN T IN T IN T IN T KHANNA PA KHANNA PA KHANNA PA KHANNA PA ASSISTANT/D ASSISTANT/D ASSISTANT/D ASSISTANT/D 1, AMRITSAR 1, AMRITSAR 1, AMRITSAR 1, AMRITSAR

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M M M M M fo

**

DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB

1.

Le also be entitled this Court date Union of India

2.

In terms of Jyoti notice dated 1 Income Tax Ac

10.

09 10.09 10.09 10.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

PER MILLS LTD. PER MILLS LTD. PER MILLS LTD. PER MILLS LTD.

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS DEPUTY DEPUTY DEPUTY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER O COMMISSIONER O COMMISSIONER O COMMISSIONER O R

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Ms. Parnika Singla, Advocate and Mr. Abhinav Narang, Advocate, fo s. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing r. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C s. Kavita, Advocate and s. Arushi Bansal, Advocate r the respondents. *** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) earned counsel for the parties a d to the same relief as has been ed 10.09.2026 passed in CWP- a and others. n the light of the above consen i Sareen’s case (supra), resulting 10.04.2023 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-9299 9299 9299 9299-2023 2023 2023 2023 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 10.09. 10.09. 10.09. 10.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE OF INCOME TAX, CIRLCE-

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH or the petitioner. g Counsel with Counsel agree that the petitioner would n granted through a judgment of -15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. nsus, the petition is allowed in g in quashing of the impugned oner under Section 148 of the l proceedings, if any.

(DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No d f . n d e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.15 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →