ROSHAN GARG vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 CHANDIGARH AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24630/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01130149202610 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court did not provide a separate detailed decision on the merits of CWP-24630-2026. Instead, it directed that the order for this petition would be in line with the detailed judgment passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024, Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This indicates that the legal principles and findings from the Jyoti Sareen case would govern the outcome of Roshan Garg's petition. The specific reasoning and ratio decidendi are therefore contained within the judgment of CWP No.15791 of 2024, which is not provided here. Consequently, no specific relief or operative directions were issued in this particular order, other than its disposal in terms of the connected case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Roshan Garg, filed a writ petition (CWP-24630-2026) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Principal 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, titled 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 Roshan Garg. 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 CWP-24630-2026 are not detailed in this order. The operative part of the judgment refers to another case for the substantive decision, implying that the legal questions and contentions were addressed in that connected matter.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-24630-2026 (O&M) Reserved on :08.09.2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 ROSHAN GARG ..... Petitioner Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 CHANDIGARH AND ORS ..... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present : Mr. Viraj Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. Vaibhav Gupta, Junior Standing Counsel and Ms. Kavita, 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 11:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →