MAYUR SPINNERS THRUGH ITS PARTNER SH GHANSHYAM DASS GOEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/23846/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01126077202408 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH,MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition in default. This decision was based on two primary grounds. Firstly, it was noted that for the second consecutive occasion, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner, despite the Registry having informed the petitioner's counsel about the case being listed after a remand order from the Supreme Court dated 10.04.2026. Secondly, the Court observed that no amendment application had been filed by the petitioner to include a challenge to the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The judgment does not delve into the merits of any substantive issue related to the Income-tax Act or the assessment proceedings, as the dismissal was purely on procedural grounds. No specific relief was granted or denied on the substantive merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mayur Spinners, through its partner Sh. Ghanshyam Dass Goel, filed a writ petition (CWP-23846-2024) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Panipat, and others. This was the second instance where no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The Registry had previously informed the petitioner's counsel about the listing of the case following a remand by the Supreme Court on 10.04.2026. No amendment application was filed to challenge the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner, given it is the second consecutive occasion, despite prior notification of the listing after a Supreme Court remand. (Question of procedure and conduct of litigation) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded as none appeared for the petitioner. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded as Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel, appeared for the respondents, but no specific arguments were presented in the judgment regarding the dismissal for default. The judgment indicates the case was dismissed in default due to non-appearance. 2. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for failure to file an amendment application to challenge the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (Question of procedural compliance and substantive challenge) Assessee's Contention: Not recorded as none appeared for the petitioner. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded as Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel, appeared for the respondents, but no specific arguments were presented in the judgment regarding the dismissal for default. The judgment indicates the case was dismissed in default due to non-appearance and failure to file an amendment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-23846-2024 (O&M) 139 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23846-2024 (O&M) Date of decision : 08.09.2026 Mayur Spinners through its partner Sh. Ghanshyam Dass Goel ...Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Panipat and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing Counsel (through V.C.) for the respondents. DEEPAK SIBAL, J.(Oral) 1. This is the second consecutive occasion when none appeared on behalf of the petitioner and this is in spite of the fact that the Registry has informed learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to listing of this case after remand by the Supreme Court through order dated 10.04.2026. 2. No amendment application has also been filed to include the challenge to the vires of Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Dismissed in default. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) JUDGE 08.09.2026 Harish Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes No Whether Reportable : Yes No

-1- HARISH KUMAR 2026.09.09 18:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 147A

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →