STUDENT BOOK DEPOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NAWANSHAJAR

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24649/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01128964202424 September 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that based on the consensus reached between the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the judgment dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024 (Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others). Consequently, the petition was allowed. The impugned notice dated 28.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that where parties agree to a precedent set by the same court in a similar matter, the court will extend that relief. All pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Student Book Depot, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer. The petition challenged a notice dated 28.08.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and any consequential proceedings. The parties agreed that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the same Court dated 10.09.2026 in CWP No.15791 of 2024, titled Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. The judgment was delivered on 17.09.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others (CWP No.15791 of 2024)? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, agreed that it would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned case of Jyoti Sareen. No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner beyond this consensus. Revenue's Contention: The respondent's counsel, Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Ranvijay Singh and Junior Standing Counsel Mr. Vidul Kapoor, also agreed to the consensus that the petitioner should receive the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this agreement.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

(Sr. No.103 )

CWP-24649-2024(O&M)

Date of decision : 17.09.2026 M/S STUDENT BOOK DEPOT .....Petitioner

Versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER ` .....Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNISH BINDLISH

Present : Mr. S. K. Mukhi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Senior Standing Counsel,

Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Junior Standing Counsel for

the respondent(s)-Income Tax Department.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral) (1) Learned counsel for the parties agree that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted through a judgment of this Court dated 10.09.2026 passed in CWP No.15791 of 2024 - Jyoti Sareen Vs. Union of India and others. (2)

In the light of the above consensus, the petition is allowed in terms of Jyoti Sareen’s case (supra), resulting in quashing of the impugned notice dated 28.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings, if any. (3)

All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE

17.09.

2026

( SUNISH BINDLISH ) shamsher/sunil yadav

JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable

: Yes / No SHAMSHER SINGH 2026.09.18 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and haryana high court, chandigarh

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →