RANDHIR SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/25227/2026HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01125074202610 September 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court directed that the order for this writ petition should be seen in the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. This implies that the present case was decided based on the principles and findings laid down in the Jyoti Sareen case. The High Court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications. The specific findings or reasoning pertaining solely to Randhir Singh's case are not detailed in this excerpt, as it refers to another judgment for the complete order. The operative direction is to follow the precedent set in the Jyoti Sareen case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Randhir Singh, filed a writ petition (CWP-25227-2026) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Faridabad, and others. The case was reserved on 08.09.2026 and decided on 10.09.2026. The High Court, in its order, stated that for the detailed judgment, reference should be made to another case, CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others, decided on the same date. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should decide the present writ petition on merits, or if it should be disposed of in terms of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the petitioner (assessee) in this particular writ petition. However, it is implied that the petitioner sought relief from the High Court. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents (revenue) in this particular writ petition. However, the presence of senior standing counsel and junior standing counsel for the respondents suggests they were representing the revenue's position.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-25227-2026 (O&M) Reserved on :08.09.2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 RANDHIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD AND ORS ..... Respondent(s) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present : Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate and Ms. Ruby, 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 15:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →