SINGLA INDUSTRIAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2

PDF · subscribers
CWP/24011/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01126809202419 September 2024Author: MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in light of the consensus between the parties and following the precedent set in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The court held that the petitioner would be entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned judgment. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.08.2024 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with any consequential proceedings, were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that when parties agree to parity with a prior judgment, and that judgment granted specific relief, the court should extend the same relief to the current petitioner. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and proceedings.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Singla Industrial Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings. The petitioner sought the same relief as granted in a previous case, CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, decided on 10.09.2026. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and the Union of India. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered the matter based on a consensus reached by the learned counsel for both parties.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed, in light of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that they should be entitled to the same relief as granted in the case of Jyoti Sareen, implying that the notice and proceedings should be quashed. They relied on the principle of parity with the aforementioned judgment. Revenue's contention: The judgment records that learned counsel for the parties agreed to the same relief as granted in Jyoti Sareen's case. Therefore, the revenue implicitly agreed to the quashing of the impugned notice and proceedings, as per the precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

262 262 262 262

IN T IN T IN T IN T

SINGLA INDU SINGLA INDU SINGLA INDU SINGLA INDU INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX INCOME TAX

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M M M M M for **

DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB

1.

Le also be entitled this Court date Union of India

2.

In terms of Jyoti notice dated 3 Income Tax Ac

14.

09 14.09 14.09 14.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

USTRIAL CORPORATION USTRIAL CORPORATION USTRIAL CORPORATION USTRIAL CORPORATION VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS X OFFICER X OFFICER X OFFICER X OFFICER

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate with r. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate, for th Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Sr. Standing r. Vaibhav Gupta, Jr. Standing C s. Kavita, Advocate and s. Arushi Bansal, Advocate r the respondents. *** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) earned counsel for the parties a d to the same relief as has been ed 10.09.2026 passed in CWP- a and others. n the light of the above consen i Sareen’s case (supra), resulting 30.08.2024 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye

AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-24011 24011 24011 24011-2024 2024 2024 2024 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 14.09. 14.09. 14.09. 14.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH he petitioner. g Counsel with Counsel agree that the petitioner would n granted through a judgment of -15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. nsus, the petition is allowed in g in quashing of the impugned oner under Section 148 of the l proceedings, if any.

(DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No d f . n d e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.19 11:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →