DHARASHIV SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. THR. MR. AMAR PATIL vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL PUNE

WP/3669/2026HC BombayHCBM07001565202614 August 20263 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of both petitions with specific directions. Firstly, acknowledging the Petitioner's willingness to comply with paragraph 7 of the impugned order dated January 14, 2026, the Court directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- per month, commencing from September 2026, after adjusting any installments already paid. Secondly, as the assessee agreed to pay the installments, the Court directed that paragraph 9 of the impugned order, which reserved the right to review the arrangement periodically, shall not be exercised by the Department. Thirdly, the Court directed that the pending CIT appeal with Respondent No. 3 be decided expeditiously, and in any event, within a period of six months from the date of the order. The Court did not explicitly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Dharashiv Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., filed two writ petitions challenging an order dated January 14, 2026, passed by Respondent No. 1, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT), Central, Pune. The impugned order directed the assessee to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- per month from January 2026 to June 2026 and reserved the right to review this arrangement periodically. The Petitioner's primary concern was the pending CIT appeal, which had been pending since March 2025. The Petitioner, on instructions, offered to continue the monthly payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-, but proposed the period to commence from September 2026 for six months, and requested that the arrangement not be reviewed if they complied.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the direction to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- per month, as per the order dated January 14, 2026, is in accordance with the subsisting circular and can be modified in terms of commencement and non-review, turning on the compliance by the assessee. The Petitioner contended that the CIT appeal has been pending since March 2025 and requested its expeditious decision. On instructions, the Petitioner agreed to the monthly payment of Rs. 10,00,000/-, but proposed that the payment period commence from September 2026 for six months. They further submitted that if they comply with the payment terms, the arrangement should not be reviewed. The Petitioner relied on their willingness to comply with paragraph 7 of the impugned order. The Revenue (Respondent) submitted that the direction for monthly payment is in accordance with a subsisting circular. They fairly conceded that if the Petitioner complies with paragraph 7 of the order, there would be no need for review. The Revenue did not oppose the prayer for expeditious decision of the CIT appeal.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

902-26-WP(ST)-1057-2026(C)-26-WP-3669-2026(C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 1057 OF 2026 Dharashiv Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Through Mr. Amar Patil ...Petitioner Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Pune And Others ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3669 OF 2026 Dharashiv Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Through Mr. Amar Patil ...Petitioner Versus The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Central Pune And Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Sham V. Walve a/w Bhavik Chheda i/by Mr. Kalpesh Patil, for the Petitioner in both Petitions. Ms. Smita Thakur (Through V.C.) for the Respondent – Income Tax Department. Mr. Anand Kulkarni for Respondent – UOI. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : August 14, 2026. P. C. : 1. By these two Petitions, the Petitioner takes exception to the order dated 14th January, 2026 passed by Respondent No.1, by which Jamadar-SL 1 of

3 SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Digitally signed by SAJAKALI LIYAKAT JAMADAR Date: 2026.08.15 10:32:14 +0530

902-26-WP(ST)-1057-2026(C)-26-WP-3669-2026(C).doc Respondent No.1 had directed the assessee to pay Rs.10,00,000/- per month starting from January 2026 to June 2026 and has also reserved the right to review the arrangement periodically. 2. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that the CIT appeal has been pending since March 2025 and may be decided expeditiously. He would further submit, on instructions, that the direction to pay the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- per month can be maintained with the period to now commence from September 2026 for a period of 6 months. He submits that as the assessee is willing to comply with paragraph 7, the arrangement may not be reviewed and may be maintained. 3. Per contra, Ms. Thakur would point out that the direction to pay the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- per month is in accordance with the subsisting circular. She would fairly submit that in the event that there is compliance with paragraph 7 of the order dated 14th January 2026, there is no question of review of the arrangement. She would further not oppose the prayer for deciding the CIT appeal expeditiously. 4. In light of the above, as the assessee has expressed its willingness to comply with paragraph 7 of the order dated 14th January 2026, the assessee is directed to pay Rs.10,00,000/- per month as per paragraph 7 from September 2026 after adjusting the installment already paid. Jamadar-SL 2 of

902-26-WP(ST)-1057-2026(C)-26-WP-3669-2026(C).doc 5. As the assessee is agreeable to pay the installments, paragraph 9 of the impugned order dated 14th January 2026, by which the right was reserved to review the arrangement periodically, may not be exercised, and a direction to that efect be given to the Department. 6. As the CIT appeal is pending with Respondent No.3, the same is directed to be decided expeditiously and in any event within a period of six months from today. 7. Both Petitions are disposed of in the above terms. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Jamadar-SL 3 of

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →