DHARMINDER SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SAMANA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/22947/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01120553202410 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petition (CWP-22947-2024) is to be decided in accordance with the detailed judgment passed on the same date in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning is that the present case is analogous to the one decided in Jyoti Sareen's case, and therefore, the principles and directions laid down therein would apply mutatis mutandis. The operative direction is that the present petition stands disposed of in terms of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case. No specific issue was left undecided as the decision was based on a precedent. The ratio decidendi is that similar writ petitions should follow the established precedent set by the High Court in related matters.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dharminder Singh, filed a writ petition (CWP-22947-2024) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward Samana, Patiala, 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 based on the detailed judgment of even date passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the present writ petition is to be decided based on the judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's case is to be decided in line with the detailed judgment of the High Court in a similar matter (CWP No.15791 of 2024). No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner beyond this reliance. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by Senior Standing Counsel and Junior Standing Counsel, did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's reliance on the aforementioned judgment. Their presence indicates their participation in the proceedings.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-22947-2024 (O&M) Reserved on :08.09.2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 DHARMINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner Versus THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD SAMANA, PATIALA AND OTHERS ..... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present : Mr. Rochak Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Junior Standing Counsel, Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate 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 →