M/S GDPA FASTNERS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/30611/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01157035202414 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in terms of a previous judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case (CWP-15791-2024), allowed the petition based on a consensus between the parties. The court quashed the impugned notice dated 31.03.2024 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 precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s GDPA Fastners, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an action by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar, specifically a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.03.2024, along with consequential proceedings. The assessment year is not explicitly stated but implied to be related to the notice. The case was heard by a division bench. The parties agreed to a consent order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed. The petitioner likely argued for quashing based on grounds not detailed in the judgment. The revenue (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax) likely defended the validity of the notice and proceedings. The judgment indicates a consensus between the parties on the outcome, suggesting the arguments were resolved by agreement rather than adversarial debate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

225 225 225 225

IN T IN T IN T IN T

M/S GDPA FA M/S GDPA FA M/S GDPA FA M/S GDPA FA ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT ASSISTANT

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : 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 3 Income Tax Ac

14.09 14.09 14.09 14.09.2026 .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 AT AT AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

ASTNERS ASTNERS ASTNERS ASTNERS

VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF INCOM COMMISSIONER OF INCOM COMMISSIONER OF INCOM COMMISSIONER OF INCOM

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI SUNI SUNI SUNI Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Coun s. Pridhi Sandhu, Advocate and s. Nikita Garg, Jr. Standing Coun 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 31.03.2024 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-30611 30611 30611 30611-2024 2024 2024 2024 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 14.09. 14.09. 14.09. 14.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ME TAX, JALANDHAR ME TAX, JALANDHAR ME TAX, JALANDHAR ME TAX, JALANDHAR

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH e petitioner. nsel with

nsel, 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 2026.09.17 15:25 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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →