PARAS HEALTHCARE LTD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD 2 NEW

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29571/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01153854202611 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India (decided on 10.09.2026), allowed the writ petition. The Court quashed the impugned notice dated 23.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was based on the agreement of the parties and the principle that similar relief should be granted where a consensus exists and a prior judgment has established a precedent. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and related proceedings.

What were the facts?

This case involves a writ petition filed by Paras Healthcare Ltd. (the petitioner) against the ACIT, Central Circle, Faridabad (the respondent). The petitioner sought relief similar to that granted in a previous case, Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, decided on 10.09.2026. The present petition was filed in light of a consent reached between the parties, following a notice dated 23.03.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered the matter based on this consensus.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India, decided on 10.09.2026, in light of the consent reached between the parties? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that based on the consensus and the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case, they should be granted similar relief. They relied on the outcome of the aforementioned judgment to support their claim. Revenue's contentions: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed to the relief sought by the petitioner, indicating a consensus on the matter. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue beyond this agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

156 156 156 156

IN T IN T IN T IN T

PARAS HEAL PARAS HEAL PARAS HEAL PARAS HEAL ACIT, CENTR ACIT, CENTR ACIT, CENTR ACIT, CENTR

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M M M M for **

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 2 Income Tax Ac

11.09 11.09 11.09 11.09.2026 .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

LTHCARE LTD LTHCARE LTD LTHCARE LTD LTHCARE LTD

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS RAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD 2 RAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD 2 RAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD 2 RAL CIRCLE, FARIDABAD 2 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 Mr. Salil Aggarwal,Sr. Advocate (T r. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate, fo r. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Coun s. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate and s. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing Coun r the respondents-Income Tax D *** 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 23.03.2024 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-29571 29571 29571 29571-2026 2026 2026 2026 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 11.09. 11.09. 11.09. 11.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER 2 NEW 2 NEW 2 NEW 2 NEW ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH Through VC) and or the petitioner. nsel with

nsel, epartment.

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 11:25 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 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →