MEENAKSHI MITTAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/11643/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01065583202510 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-11643-2025) would be disposed of in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, no independent findings or reasoning specific to the facts of Meenakshi Mittal's case are provided in this order. The court also directed that all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of. The substantive legal determination and the relief granted would be as per the judgment in the connected case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Meenakshi Mittal, filed a writ petition (CWP-11643-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Faridabad, and others. The judgment was reserved on 08.09.2026 and decided on 10.09.2026. The High Court, in its order, stated that the present writ petition is to be decided in terms of the detailed judgment passed in a connected matter, CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the issues raised in the writ petition filed by Meenakshi Mittal. However, the judgment explicitly states that the order for this petition is to be passed in terms of the detailed judgment in CWP No. 15791 of 2024. Therefore, the specific issues and arguments presented by the petitioner and the revenue in CWP-11643-2025 are not detailed in this specific order. The operative part of the judgment refers to another case for the substantive decision, implying that the core legal questions were addressed in that connected matter.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11643-2025 (O&M) Reserved on :08.09.2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 MEENAKSHI MITTAL ..... Petitioner Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(3) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS ..... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present : Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Kritika Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel and Ms. Nikita Garg, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents. * * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. 1. For order see the detailed judgment of even date passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. 2. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE 10.09.2026 (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) Jyoti 1

JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.15 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →