ABHIJIT DHANANJAY PATIL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR AND ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the present writ petition was covered by its previous order dated October 15, 2025, in Writ Petition No. 11665 of 2025, which was based on the decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 175 taxmann. Com 303 (Bombay). Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition in the same terms as the previous order. The operative directions included: (a) The petitioner shall pursue their appeal(s) filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the impugned assessment order, with liberty to raise contentions on the notice and order being invalid in light of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra). (b) The petitioner was permitted to file an application before the Appellate Authority praying for the appeal to be disposed of in view of the Hexaware Technologies Limited decision, with the Appellate Authority directed to expeditiously consider such application. (c) The impugned assessment shall not be acted upon until the proceedings before the Appellate Forum are decided. (d) All contentions of the parties on the pending proceedings were expressly kept open. No issue was left undecided; the petition was disposed of on procedural grounds based on precedent.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Abhijit Dhananjay Patil, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur challenging an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle Kolhapur. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the present writ petition was covered by a previous order of the same court dated October 15, 2025, in Writ Petition No. 11665 of 2025. This previous order, in turn, relied on the decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer. The revenue's counsel agreed with this position. The court also referred to another order dated December 8, 2025, in a batch of writ petitions. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the aforementioned orders.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the present writ petition is covered by the order passed by this Court on October 15, 2025, in Writ Petition No. 11665 of 2025, which itself relied on the decision in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 175 taxmann. Com 303 (Bombay)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforementioned order of this Court and sought disposal in similar terms. They relied on the reasoning in the order of October 15, 2025, which directed the petitioner to pursue appeals before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and allowed them to raise contentions regarding the invalidity of the notice and order in light of the decision in Hexaware Technologies Limited (supra). The petitioner also sought permission to file an application before the Appellate Authority for disposal of the appeal in view of the Hexaware Technologies Limited decision. Revenue's Contention: The learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (revenue) fairly agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petition could be disposed of in the same terms.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
20-WP-13206-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13206 OF 2025 Abhijit Dhananjay Patil ...Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle Kolhapur And Ors. ...Respondents ….. Mr. Sham Walve a/w. Bhavik Chheda i/b. Kalpesh Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Smita Thakur, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Vijay Killedar, Advocate for respondent no.4. …..
CORAM : R.G. AVACHAT AND
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ. DATE : 20th JANUARY, 2026. P.C: 1. Heard. 2. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the present writ petition is covered by the order passed by this Court on 15th October 2025 in Writ Petition No. 11665 of 2025. He invites our attention to paragraph 3 of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 11665 of 2025, which reads as under: “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 1 of 3 adn
20-WP-13206-2025.doc Officer [2025] 175 taxmann. Com 303 (Bombay). Hence, the following order; (a) The petitioner shall pursue his appeal (s) already filed 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). (b) We also permit the petitioner to file 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.” 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, in view of the order referred to, the present writ petition can be disposed of in the same terms. 4. Reliance is also placed on order dated 8th December 2025 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 12625 of 2025, 12626 of 2025, 12627 of 2025 and 12628 of 2025. 5. The learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 fairly agrees with the said position. Hence, we find no difficulty in disposing this petition in the light of the decision of this Court in Shantilal Prabhudas & Co. Vs. Income-tax Officer [2025] 175 taxmann. Com 303 (Bombay). Hence, the following order; (a) The petitioner shall pursue his appeal (s) already filed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) 2 of 3 adn
20-WP-13206-2025.doc 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). (b) We also permit the petitioner to file 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. 6. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] [ R.G. AVACHAT J.] 3 of 3 adn
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Sujit Paswan @ Sujit Pasman vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
