VIMAL KUMAR GUPTA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 GURGAON AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21114/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01114163202510 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-21114-2025) would be decided in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The court did not delve into the specific facts or legal arguments pertaining to Vimal Gupta's case in this order. Instead, it adopted a procedural approach, deferring the substantive decision to the outcome of the aforementioned connected case. The ratio decidendi for this order is that when a case is directly linked to a precedent-setting judgment, the court may dispose of the former by reference to the latter, thereby ensuring consistency and judicial economy. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vimal Gupta, filed a writ petition (CWP-21114-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon, 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 based on the detailed judgment passed in a connected case, 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?

1. Whether the present writ petition should be decided based on the judgment in Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15791 of 2024)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, Vimal Gupta, through his counsel, implicitly agreed to have his case decided based on the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case, as indicated by the court's order referencing that judgment for the present case. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Ranvijay Singh and Junior Standing Counsel Mr. Vidul Kapoor, did not record any specific arguments in this particular order. However, by not objecting to the court's approach, they implicitly accepted the decision to follow the Jyoti Sareen judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-21114-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 08.09.2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026

VIMAL GUPTA ..... Petitioner

Versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGAON AND OTHERS

..... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present : Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel,

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 2026.09.15 16:06 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 →