MANISH JAIN S/O NEMI CHAND JAIN vs. OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the applicant's miscellaneous application in terms of the order passed by a coordinate bench on 01.07.2026. The coordinate bench had dismissed a similar application filed by the Department seeking recall of an order. The reasoning was that the SLP against the High Court's order was still pending before the Supreme Court. The coordinate bench held that it would not recall its earlier order solely based on another case's order, especially when the appeal against its own order was sub-judice. It was observed that if the Supreme Court passed a similar order in the pending SLP, the writ petitions would automatically stand revived or revival could be sought. The High Court, by adopting this order, implicitly held that the present application for recalling the order dated 01.09.2025 was also not maintainable in the current circumstances, pending the outcome of the SLP before the Supreme Court. The operative direction was to dispose of the application in terms of the earlier order.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Manish Jain, through his Power of Attorney Holder, Ankit Jain, filed an application seeking to recall an order dated 01.09.2025 and restore their writ petitions for adjudication on merits. The restoration was sought in light of an amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2026. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that a coordinate bench of the High Court had dealt with a similar application on 01.07.2026. In that instance, the Department had sought recalling of an order disposing of a writ petition, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the High Court dismissed the Department's application, noting that the SLP against the High Court's order was still pending before the Supreme Court. The High Court suggested that if the Supreme Court passed a similar order in the pending SLP, the writ petitions would automatically stand revived or revival could be sought.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to have the order dated 01.09.2025 recalled and the writ petitions restored for adjudication on merits in light of the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2026? (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and substantive rights). Assessee's Contention: The applicant seeks restoration of the writ petitions to address the merits in light of a new amendment. They rely on the principle that subsequent legislative changes can warrant reconsideration of earlier orders. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the Revenue regarding this application. However, the context of the coordinate bench's order suggests the Revenue's initial stance was to seek recall based on a Supreme Court decision, which was ultimately rejected by the coordinate bench.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 13/07/2026
Applicant is before us seeks recalling of the order dated 01.09.2025 and consequently restoration of the respective writ petitions to their original numbers for adjudication on merits in light of the amendment which was introduced by the Finance Act, 2026. 2. At the very threshold learned counsel for the applicant has can- didly pointed out that similar application filed in certain other matters was disposed of by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 01.07.2026, which reads as under:- "
The Department has filed an application for recalling of the order passed by us whereby the writ petition was disposed of. It is stated that as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the orders passed in appeal on 10.04.2026 in the case of Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Chandi-
[2026:RJ-JP:26167-DB] (2 of 2) [WMAP-376/2026] garh & Ors. vs. Tej Pratap Singh (Diary No.2196/2026), the orders may be recalled.
The orders passed by this Court dated 01.09.2025 in the concerned writ petition has been challenged in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the SLPs are still pending. In these circumstances, therefore, mainly on the basis of another order passed in relation to another case, this court would not recall its earlier order. As the SLP against the order passed by this Court is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the application is thus found to be misconceived.
In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 10.04.2026, the Department may move appropriate application for dis- posal of the SLPs and if a similar order is passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petitions would automatically stand revived or revival order may be sought from the Court.
Accordingly the present miscellaneous application is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.
However, it is being prayed by the learned counsel for the appli- cant(s) that they may be allowed to file photocopy of the certified copy originally filed and the certified copies may be allowed to be handed over back to the applicant(s) for filing subsequently as and when re- quired.
The prayer made is allowed.
All other application(s), if any, stand disposed of."
Apropos, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this appli- cation be also disposed of accordingly.
In view of the aforesaid statement made by learned counsel for the applicant, the above titled application is also disposed of in terms of order dated 01.07.2026, as above. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (ARUN MONGA),J 8/TUSHAR KUMAWAT
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
