SUDHIR KUMAR MUNJAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA1

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19813/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01106256202613 July 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition had become infructuous. This was based on the submission made by the respondent-revenue that the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 was a non-speaking order. The revenue undertook to withdraw this order and pass a fresh one after considering the petitioner's objections. The Court granted liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh transfer order in accordance with law. Crucially, the Court directed that before passing the fresh transfer order, the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of personal hearing. The Court did not decide on the merits of the transfer itself, only on the procedural aspect of the impugned order being non-speaking and the subsequent proposed action by the revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sudhir Kumar Munjal, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging an order dated 29.01.2026. This order had transferred the petitioner's tax jurisdiction from Ludhiana to New Delhi. The respondent, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1, through its counsel, acknowledged that the impugned order was non-speaking. The revenue proposed to withdraw the said order and pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's objections to the preceding notice. The High Court noted that the petition had become infructuous due to this submission but granted liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh transfer order in accordance with law.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 29.01.2026, transferring the petitioner's tax jurisdiction, is liable to be quashed as a non-speaking order? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order. (Implicitly, the petitioner argued it was bad in law). Revenue's Contention: The respondent-revenue conceded that the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 was a non-speaking order. They proposed to withdraw it and pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's objections. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by either party in the provided text.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-19813-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 139 CWP-19813-2026 Date of Decision: 13.07.2026 Sudhir Kumar Munjal ....Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Counsel for the respondent. ***** DEEPAK SIBAL

, J (ORAL)

1.

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 29.01.2026, through which the petitioner’s tax jurisdiction has been transferred from Ludhiana to New Delhi. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- revenue submits that since the impugned order dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure P-3) is a non-speaking order, the same shall be withdrawn but liberty be granted to the respondents to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner’s objections filed by him to the notice which preceded the impugned order. DINESH BANSAL 2026.07.16 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CWP-19813-2026 -2- 3. In the light of the above statement made by learned counsel for the respondent-revenue, the present petition with regard to the challenge to the impugned order has been rendered infructuous. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to pass a fresh transfer order, in accordance with law. 4. Before passing the fresh transfer order as above, the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of personal hearing. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 13.07.2026 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DINESH BANSAL 2026.07.16 11:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →