PANKAJ YADAV vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1) GURGAON AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/768/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01004942202510 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, stated that the detailed judgment for CWP-768-2025 (Pankaj Yadav Vs. Income Tax Officer and others) is provided in an order of the same date passed in CWP No. 15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the decision in Pankaj Yadav's case is contingent upon the findings and reasoning presented in the Jyoti Sareen judgment. The operative directions and the specific relief granted to Pankaj Yadav would be those stipulated in the Jyoti Sareen judgment. The judgment does not record any specific findings or reasoning directly applicable to Pankaj Yadav's case, other than referencing the connected matter. Any issues expressly left undecided would also be those from the Jyoti Sareen judgment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Pankaj Yadav, filed a writ petition (CWP-768-2025) before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Gurgaon, and others. The High Court reserved its decision on 08.09.2026 and delivered its order on 10.09.2026. The judgment states that the order for this case is to be found in a detailed judgment of the same date passed in 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 CWP-768-2025. The judgment does not explicitly state the questions of law or fact that the court had to decide for Pankaj Yadav's petition. It also does not record the specific arguments made by the petitioner, Pankaj Yadav, or the respondents, the Income Tax Officer and others. The entire decision for this case is based on the judgment passed in a connected writ petition, CWP No. 15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Therefore, the specific issues and arguments pertaining to Pankaj Yadav's case are not detailed within this specific order.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-768-2025 (O&M) Reserved on :08.09.2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 PANKAJ YADAV ..... Petitioner Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1) GURGAON 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 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 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →