SUNITA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/21498/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01114296202610 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, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the order for the present writ petition (CWP-21498-2026) would be the same as the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, the specific findings, reasoning, and ratio decidendi of the Jyoti Sareen case would apply to this case. The operative directions would therefore depend on the outcome of the Jyoti Sareen judgment. Any pending miscellaneous applications in this petition were also disposed of. The judgment does not record any independent analysis or decision on the merits of the petitioner's case, nor does it specify any issue left undecided.

What were the facts?

This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner, Sunita, challenging an order or action by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kurukshetra, and others. The judgment does not specify the assessment year(s) or the amount in dispute. The procedural history is limited to the fact that the case was reserved for orders on 08.09.2026 and the decision was pronounced on 10.09.2026. The Court directed that the order for this petition would be the same as the detailed judgment passed in a connected case, CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order/action of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Kurukshetra, and others is legally sustainable. (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner has approached this Court by way of a writ petition, implying a challenge to the legality and validity of the revenue's action. Specific grounds for challenge are not detailed in this short order, but the filing of a writ petition suggests a grievance against the tax authorities. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel, is present and likely to defend the action taken by the Income Tax Officer. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities are recorded for the revenue in this judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-21498-2026 (O&M) Reserved on : 08.09.2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026

SUNITA

..... Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, KURUKSHETRA AND OTHERS

..... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present : Mr. Ankur Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Senior Standing Counsel

for the respondent(s)-revenue (through VC).

* * *

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 18:42 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 →