IMRAN ABDUL RASHID ANSARI vs. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NASHIK AND OTHERS

WP/6539/2017HC BombayHCBM03001760201709 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE2 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court granted permission to the petitioners to withdraw the present writ petitions. This decision was based on the statement made by the petitioners' counsel that an alternate and equally efficacious remedy was available before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), citing the precedent of similarly situated employees who had already approached the CAT. The Court directed that the writ petitions be disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the petitioners to file applications before the CAT within four weeks from the date of the order. The CAT was further directed to decide these applications on their merits within six months of their filing. Any delay in filing the applications before the CAT would be considered by the Tribunal during the condonation of delay application, provided the applications were filed within the stipulated four-week period. 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 learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Mumbai. The respondents were the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik, and others. The petitioners' counsel informed the court that similarly situated employees had already approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and that an alternate and equally efficacious remedy was available before the CAT for the present petitioners.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy before the Central Administrative Tribunal, given that similarly situated employees have already approached it? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that an alternate and equally efficacious remedy exists before the Central Administrative Tribunal, as some similarly situated employees have already filed applications there. Revenue's Contention: No specific contention is recorded for the revenue regarding the availability of an alternate remedy.

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:5700

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 →