SARITA GUPTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3) FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/25885/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01139940202510 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-25885-2025) would be decided in terms of the detailed judgment passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The operative part of the judgment indicates that the decision in this case follows the precedent set in the connected matter. No specific findings or reasoning pertaining solely to Sarita Gupta's case are detailed, as the judgment relies on the reasoning of the companion case. The ratio decidendi is that similar writ petitions will be governed by the outcome of the lead case. The court also disposed of all pending miscellaneous applications.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sarita Gupta, filed a writ petition (CWP-25885-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer, Faridabad, 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 decision in this case would be based on the detailed judgment passed in a connected matter, 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?

1. Whether the present writ petition is to be decided based on the judgment in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the petitioner, Sarita Gupta, in this particular writ petition. It is implied that the petitioner is seeking relief through this writ petition. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the respondents, the Income Tax Officer, Faridabad, and others. It is implied that the revenue is defending the action or order being challenged by the petitioner.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-25885-2025 (O&M) Reserved on : 08.09.2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026

SARITA GUPTA

..... Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD AND OTHERS

..... Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL

Present : Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Varun Issar, Senior Standing Counsel,

Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Junior Standing Counsel and

Ms. Nikita Garg, Junior Standing Counsel

for the respondent(s)-revenue.

* * *

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) shamsher

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No

Whether reportable : Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.16 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →