SERENTICA RENEWABLES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TDS GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
CWP/29080/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01157095202527 July 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL1 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court accepted the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the writ petition had become infructuous due to the efflux of time. Consequently, the petition was disposed of on this procedural ground. The court explicitly clarified that the issue of law raised through the petition was being kept open to be decided in an appropriate future case. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as infructuous.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Serentica Renewables India Private Limited, filed a writ petition (CWP-29080-2025) challenging an order or action by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Gurgaon. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not recorded in this judgment. The procedural history leading to this High Court proceeding is also not detailed. The present judgment pertains to an application (CM-12022-CWP-2026) filed in relation to the writ petition.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the writ petition had become infructuous due to the efflux of time. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petition was indeed rendered infructuous. The respondent's counsel was present but no specific arguments are recorded for the revenue. The court was not asked to decide the substantive legal issues raised in the original writ petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 107 CM-12022-CWP-2026 IN/AND CWP-29080-2025 Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 SERENTICA RENEWABLES INDIA 1 PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS ), GURGAON ..... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, Advocate for the respondent. ***** DEEPAK SIBAL

, J (ORAL)

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to efflux of time, the present petition has been rendered infructuous. 2. Disposed of. 3. It is made clear that the issue on law raised through this petition is kept open to be decided in an appropriate case. (DEEPAK SIBAL) JUDGE (RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL) 27.07.2026 JUDGE D.Bansal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DINESH BANSAL 2026.07.29 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →