PRAVIN BHASKAR SURYAWANSHI vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NASHIK AND OTHERS

WP/6513/2017HC BombayHCBM03001998201709 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy by filing applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. This was based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, acknowledging that similarly situated employees had already approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, the Court granted permission to withdraw the present writ petitions with liberty to file applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to decide these applications on their merits within six months of filing, and to consider the delay caused in prosecuting the writ petitions when considering any application for condonation of delay, provided the applications are filed within four weeks from the date of the order. All issues were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Harshad Suresh Deo and others, filed multiple writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, challenging orders passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Mumbai. The respondents included the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik, and others. The petitions were filed challenging these orders. The procedural history indicates that the petitioners were seeking relief from the High Court regarding the orders of the Industrial Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy to file applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, considering that similarly situated employees have already approached the said Tribunal? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that they have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy to file applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal, as some similarly situated employees have already done so. Revenue's Contention: No specific contention is recorded for the revenue regarding this issue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1 5 WP 6511-2017.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 5 WRIT PETITION NO. 6511 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6539 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6513 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6512 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6531 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6514 OF 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6532 OF 2017 HARSHAD SURESH DEO VERSUS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NASHIK AND OTHERS … Ms.Pradnya Talekar h/f. Talekar and Associates – Advocate for Petitioners Mr. Alok Sharma – Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. D.R. Korde – AGP for Respondents, State … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 09.02.2026 PER COURT : 1. In all these petitions, the petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Mumbai. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners makes a statement that against the impugned orders, the petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy to file applications before the Central Administrative 2026:BHC-AUG:5701

2 5 WP 6511-2017.odt Tribunal, as some similarly situated employees have already approached the said Tribunal. 3. In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, permission is granted to withdraw the present petitions with liberty to file applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 4. The Writ Petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to file applications before the Tribunal within a period of four (4) weeks from today and if the applications are filed by the petitioners within the aforesaid period, the Tribunal shall decide the same within a period of six (6) months thereafter, on its own merits in accordance with law. 5. The delay caused in prosecuting the present petitions shall be taken into consideration by the Tribunal while considering the application for condonation of delay, if the applications filed within a period of four (4) weeks from today. 6. All issues are kept open. 7. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ] Pooja Kale/

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →