SWATI SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1) CHANDIGARH AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18993/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01091335202610 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 held that the present writ petition (CWP-18993-2026) would be decided in terms of the detailed judgment passed in the connected case, CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi for CWP-18993-2026 are not elaborated upon in this judgment. The operative directions would therefore be those stipulated in the Jyoti Sareen judgment. Any pending miscellaneous applications filed in this petition were also disposed of. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the decision was deferred to the connected case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Swati Singh, filed a writ petition (CWP-18993-2026) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh, 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 decision in this case would be in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in a connected case, CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the issues?

The judgment does not explicitly state the specific issues that the High Court had to decide in CWP-18993-2026. However, it is implied that the issues in this petition are identical to those decided in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, as the court directed that the order in the present case would be in accordance with the detailed judgment of the connected matter. The specific grounds or legal questions addressed in the Jyoti Sareen case are not detailed in this particular judgment. Therefore, the arguments presented by the assessee (petitioner) and the revenue (respondent) for CWP-18993-2026 are not recorded here, other than the fact that the petitioner was represented by Mr. Rochak Singla, Advocate, and the respondents by Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel, and Ms. Kavita, Advocate.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-18993-2026 (O&M) Reserved on : 08.09.2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026

SWATI SINGH

..... Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH AND ORS

..... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present : Mr. Rochak Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel,

Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel and

Ms. Kavita, Advocate, for the respondent(s)-revenue.

* * *

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) shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No

Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.16 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →