MOHIT VERMA S/O SHRINIVAS VERMA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Facts

The petitioners, including Sunder Gangaram Punjabi, Mohit Verma, Shashikant Vaishnav, Jeetendra Singh Gaur, Ashok Kumar Pasari, and Vikas Jain, filed writ petitions challenging orders passed by income tax authorities. These writ petitions were previously disposed of by the High Court on 01.09.2025. The petitioners are now seeking to recall that order and restore their writ petitions for adjudication on merits, citing an amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2026. The applications are connected with other similar matters. The court notes that a co-ordinate bench had previously dismissed similar applications filed by the Department.

Held

The High Court disposed of all the applications in terms of a previous order dated 30.06.2026 passed by a co-ordinate bench. That order had dismissed the Department's application for recalling a previous order, stating that the pendency of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court against the High Court's order was not a ground for recall. The co-ordinate bench had observed that if a similar order was passed by the Supreme Court in the SLPs, the writ petitions would automatically stand revived or revival could be sought. In the present case, the learned counsel for the applicants stated that all these applications should be disposed of accordingly. Therefore, the applications for recalling the order dated 01.09.2025 and restoring the writ petitions were dismissed in terms of the aforementioned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should recall its earlier order dated 01.09.2025 and restore the writ petitions for adjudication on merits in light of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2026? Assessee's Contention: The applicants (petitioners) contend that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2026, necessitates a fresh adjudication on merits and therefore, the previous order disposing of the writ petitions should be recalled and the matters restored. They rely on the principle that subsequent legislative changes can warrant a review of prior decisions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondent revenue authorities regarding the recall of the order. However, it references a previous order where the Department's application for recalling an order was dismissed, stating that the pendency of SLPs before the Supreme Court against the High Court's order would not be a ground for recall, and that the Department could move an appropriate application for disposal of SLPs.