TIRLOCHAN SINGH vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX INV 2 LUDHIANA AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21465/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01109918202407 May 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal (High Court) allowed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that a final penalty order had been passed during the pendency of the writ petition. The court granted the petitioner the liberty to challenge this subsequent penalty order. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty. Any pending applications were also to stand disposed of. The judgment did not decide on the merits of the original writ petition or the penalty order itself, as the petition was withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Prince Saini, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Ludhiana, and another. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition. The material fact leading to this request was that a final penalty order had been passed during the pendency of the writ petition. The petitioner requested to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the said penalty order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition, given that a final penalty order has been passed during its pendency? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural rights and the impact of subsequent events on pending litigation). Contentions: Assessee (Petitioner): Submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, a final penalty order has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition with liberty to challenge the said penalty order. The petitioner relied on the principle that a party should be allowed to withdraw a case when subsequent events necessitate a different course of action, and that liberty should be granted to pursue appropriate remedies against the new order. Revenue (Respondents): The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the respondents regarding the withdrawal of the petition or the liberty sought by the petitioner. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue did not object to the withdrawal with liberty.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE TIRLOCHAN DEPUTY DIR

CORAM : H

H Present : M

DEEPAK SIB

L pendency of th he be permitte order.

07.05.2026 Prince

Whether reportabl Whether Reasoned

Sr. No.115+250

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CM-982

CM-452 CM-452

CWP-2 Date of

N SINGH

Versus RECTOR OF INCOME TAX INV

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPI Mr. Tanmay Bhatnagar, Advocate or the petitioner. (Through V.C.) Ms. Pridhi Jaswinder Sandhu, Sr. or the respondents.

*** BAL, J. (Oral) earned counsel for the petitio his petition, final penalty order h ed to withdraw this petition w Dismissed as withdrawn with libe ending application(s), if any, sha

(DEEPA

(LAPIT

J e : Yes/No

d: Yes/No Page 1 of 1 B AND HARYANA AT H 2-CWP-2026

26-CWP-2026 27-CWP-2026 in/and 1465-2024

f Decision : 07.05.2026

…PETITIONER V 2 LUDHIANA AND ANR …RESPONDENTS EPAK SIBAL ITA BANERJI e

Panel Counsel oner submits that during the has been passed and therefore, with liberty to challenge such erty as prayed for. all also stand disposed of. AK SIBAL) JUDGE

TA BANERJI) JUDGE

PRINCE SAINI 2026.05.08 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →