SUSHIL BANSAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24223/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01127552202410 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, has decided that the judgment in CWP-24223-2024 (Sushil Bansal Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others) will 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 pertaining to Sushil Bansal's case are not elaborated upon in this excerpt. The operative directions for CWP-24223-2024 are therefore implicitly linked to the outcome of CWP No.15791 of 2024. Any pending miscellaneous applications related to this petition have also been disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sushil Bansal, filed a writ petition (CWP-24223-2024) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others. The judgment indicates that the order being challenged is not detailed in this excerpt. The procedural history relevant to this excerpt is that the case was reserved for judgment on 08.09.2026 and the decision was pronounced on 10.09.2026. The High Court has directed that the order for this petition will 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. All pending miscellaneous applications have also been disposed of.

What were the issues?

The High Court was to decide the issues raised in CWP-24223-2024. However, the specific questions of law or fact that the Tribunal had to decide are not recorded in this excerpt. The judgment states that the order for this petition is to be the same as the detailed judgment in CWP No.15791 of 2024. Therefore, the arguments of the petitioner and the revenue regarding the specific issues in CWP-24223-2024 are not provided here. The judgment does not record any arguments for either side concerning the specific facts of Sushil Bansal's case.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24223-2024 (O&M) Reserved on :08.09.2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 SUSHIL BANSAL ..... Petitioner Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS ..... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present : Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate and Ms. Kritika Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Vidul Kapoor, 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 2026.09.16 16:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →