M/S OMAXE GARV BUILDTECH PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19866/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01108961202514 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition based on the consensus reached by the parties. The Court directed that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as had been granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024 (Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was quashed, along with any consequential proceedings. The reasoning was primarily based on the agreement between the petitioner and the revenue, obviating the need for an independent adjudication on the merits of the case. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a specific outcome based on a prior binding precedent, the court will give effect to that consensus.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Omaxe Garv Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The petition challenged a notice dated 30.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The respondents were the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 and others. The parties agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment by the same Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP-15791-2024, titled Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed, in light of the consensus between the parties that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued, through their counsel, that they should be granted the same relief as awarded in the case of Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. This implies an agreement with the outcome of that prior judgment, likely concerning the validity or quashing of a Section 148 notice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Senior Standing Counsel, agreed with the petitioner's submission that the petitioner should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned Jyoti Sareen case. This indicates the revenue's consent to the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-19866-2025 (O&M) 170 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-19866-2025 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.09.2026 M/s Omaxe Garv Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1 and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: Mr.Puneet Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate with Ms. Shruti Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent(s)-revenue. DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(Oral) 1. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted through a judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP-15791-2024- Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. 2. In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in terms of Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra), resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 30.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alongwith consequential proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 14.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.17 09:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →