SAI VINAYAKKA EDUCATION SOCIETY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, in its order dated 10.09.2026, decided that the present writ petition (CWP-21651-2026) would be disposed of in accordance with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Consequently, no independent findings or reasoning are provided for the present case. The court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications. The specific issues, arguments, and the final decision on the merits of CWP-21651-2026 are not detailed herein, as they are subsumed within the decision of the referred case.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Sai Vinayakka Education Society, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh, 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 present writ petition is to be decided in terms of the detailed judgment passed in a connected case, CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
What were the issues?
The High Court was to decide the issues raised in the writ petition filed by Sai Vinayakka Education Society. However, the judgment explicitly states that the order for this petition is to be passed in terms of the detailed judgment in CWP No.15791 of 2024. Therefore, the specific issues and arguments presented by the petitioner and the revenue in the present case are not recorded in this order. The operative part of the judgment refers to another case for the detailed reasoning and decision.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21651-2026 (O&M) Reserved on :08.09.2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 SAI VINAYAKKA EDUCATION SOCIETY ..... Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ..... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present : Mr. Deepak Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel and Ms. Nikita Garg, Junior Standing Counsel for the respondents. * * * 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) Jyoti 1
JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No JYOTI SHARMA 2026.09.15 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
