UTTAM SINGH RAJPUT vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), PANAJI AND 3 ORS.

PDF · subscribers
WP/189/2026HC BombayHCBM05000963202628 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VALMIKI MENEZES,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa held that the withdrawal of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue had rendered the subject matter of the writ petition infructuous. Consequently, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, on instructions, sought to withdraw the petition. The Court accepted this request. The ratio of the decision is that when the action challenged in a writ petition becomes infructuous due to subsequent actions by the respondent, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the petition. The operative direction was that the Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Uttam Singh Rajput, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Panaji. The revenue, represented by the Income-Tax Officer and the Union of India, were the respondents. The procedural history indicates that the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The amount in dispute is not stated. The assessment year(s) are not specified.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the withdrawal of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Revenue renders the writ petition infructuous? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner's counsel submitted that the Revenue has withdrawn the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, rendering the subject matter of the petition infructuous. Based on this, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the Revenue regarding the withdrawal of the notice or its impact on the petition. However, the Revenue's counsel was present and represented.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

36 WP 189 2026 siddhi IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.189 OF 2026 UTTAM SINGH RAJPUT ... PETITIONER Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), PANAJI AND 3 ORS. ... RESPONDENTS Mr. Sahil Sardessai with Ms. Rutuja N. Pawar, (Through V.C.) Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel and Ms. Saloni Sankhe(Through V.C.), Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. Pravin N. Faldessai, Deputy Solicitor General of India for the Union of India. Mr. Raviraj Chodankar, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for Union of India. CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATED :- 28th April, 2026 P.C. 1. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Revenue has withdrawn the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. 2. Consequently, the subject matter of this petition has become infructuous. 3. On instructions, learned Advocate for the Petitioner seeks to Page 1 of 2 28th April, 2026

36 WP 189 2026 withdraw this petition. 4. Writ Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. Page 2 of 2 28th April, 2026 Signed by: SHAKUNTALA ZALMI Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 29/04/2026 17:29:13

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →