VARUN GOEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47(1), DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/13391/2024HC DelhiDLHC01063944202407 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court, consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Mehta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar, decided that the writ petition had become infructuous. The Court noted the submission from the petitioner's counsel regarding subsequent developments rendering the petition infructuous. Based on this submission, the Court disposed of the writ petition and the pending application as having been rendered infructuous. No decision was made on the merits of the original grievance that led to the filing of the writ petition. The ratio decidendi is that if a party to a writ petition concedes that it has become infructuous due to subsequent events, the court will dispose of the matter on that basis without delving into the merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Varun Goel, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order or action by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 47(1), Delhi, and another respondent. The specific assessment year(s) and the nature of the order or action are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history leading to the writ petition is also not elaborated. The case was listed before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition has become infructuous due to subsequent developments? (Question of fact) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition has been rendered infructuous due to subsequent developments. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the petitioner regarding the merits of the original challenge. Revenue's Contention: The respondents were represented by their counsel, but their specific arguments or contentions are not recorded in the provided text. It is not stated whether they argued that the petition was not infructuous or presented any counter-arguments on the merits.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~42 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 13391/2024 & CM APPL. 55935/2024

VARUN GOEL

.....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47(1), DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC with Ms. Easha Gurung, JSC, Mr. Nring Chamwibo Zeliang & Ms. Anu Priya Nisha Minz, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

07.04.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition has been rendered infructuous due to subsequent development. 2. The writ petition along with pending application is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

DINESH MEHTA, J

VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 7, 2026 kk

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 09/04/2026 at 13:27:51

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →