DHARASHIV SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. THR. AMAR PATIL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WP/12626/2025HC BombayHCBM07047778202508 December 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT B. KADETHANKAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the controversy in the present case was squarely covered by its own decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer (2025) 175 taxmann.com 303 (Bombay). Consequently, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue their appeals already filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the impugned assessment order. The petitioner was permitted to raise contentions regarding the invalidity of the impugned notice and order in light of the Hexaware Technologies Limited decision. The Court also allowed the petitioner to file an application before the Appellate Authority for disposal of the appeal in view of the Hexaware Technologies Limited decision. The Appellate Authority was directed to expeditiously consider such an application. Until the proceedings before the Appellate Forum were decided, the impugned assessment was not to be acted upon. All contentions of the parties on the pending proceedings were expressly kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dharashiv Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., filed multiple writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kolhapur. The revenue opposed the relief sought by the petitioner. The revenue acknowledged the petitioner's reliance on the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income – Tax (2024) 162 Taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), but noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Income Tax Department against that decision was pending. The revenue requested the Court to independently examine the contentions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present writ petitions are maintainable in light of the pending SLP against the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) and the pendency of appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner relied on the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income – Tax (2024) 162 Taxmann.com 225 (Bombay). Revenue's Contention: The revenue acknowledged the petitioner's reliance on Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) but highlighted that an SLP challenging this decision was pending. Therefore, the revenue submitted that the Court should independently examine the petitioner's contentions.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

2-12625-2025-CWP-C=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12625 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12626 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12627 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12628 OF 2025 Dharashiv Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. … Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kolhapur & Ors. … Respondents …………. Mr. Shyam Walve (through VC) a/w Mr. Cheda i/b Mr. Kalpesh Patil for the Petitioner. Ms. Smita Thakur (through VC) for the respondent – Income Tax Mr. Vijay Killedar for the respondent - UOI …………. Coram : M. S. Karnik & Ajit B. Kadethankar, JJ. Date : December 08, 2025. ORAL ORDER: (Per M.S. Karnik, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Walve, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Thakur learned Counsel for the respondent – Income Tax and Mr. Killedar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Uday S. Jagtap 1 of

3 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2025.12.08 19:34:38 +0530

2-12625-2025-CWP-C=.doc 2. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the relief as prayed for in these petitions. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that though the petitioner relied upon the decision in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income – Tax (2024) 162 Taxmann.com 225 (Bombay), the SLP iled by the Income Tax Department challenging the decision in Hexaware Technologies (supra) is pending for consideration. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that this Court to independently examine the contentions raised by the petitioner. 3. In our opinion, the controversy in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. Vs. Income-tax Oicer (2025) 175 taxmann.com 303 (Bombay). Hence, the following order :- (a) The petitioner shall pursue his appeal(s) already iled before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the impugned assessment order. It is open to the petitioner to raise contentions on the impugned notice and the order being invalid, in the light of the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra) . Uday S. Jagtap 2 of

2-12625-2025-CWP-C=.doc (b) We also permit the petitioner to ile an application before the Appellate Authority praying that the appeal be disposed of in view of the decision of this Court in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra). If such an interim application is made, certainly the Appellate Authority shall expeditiously consider the petitioner’s application and all contentions raised thereon. (c)Until the proceedings before the Appellate Forum are decided, the impugned assessment shall not be acted upon. (d) All contentions of the parties on the pending proceedings are expressly kept open. 4. The Writ Petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. [Ajit B. Kadethankar, J. ] [ M. S. Karnik ] Uday S. Jagtap 3 of

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →