AMAR ELECRICALS AND ELCTRONICS, THR. ITS PARTNER vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PANAJI AND 3 ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/115/2026HC BombayHCBM05001885202527 April 2026Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VALMIKI MENEZES,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the submission by the learned advocate for the Petitioner that the proceedings under challenge had been dropped. Consequently, on instructions, the learned counsel for the Petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petitions. The Court, in light of this development, passed an order dismissing the petitions as withdrawn. No decision was rendered on the merits of any income tax assessment or dispute, as the petitions were disposed of based on the withdrawal by the petitioners.

What were the facts?

These are multiple writ petitions filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petitioners include Pravin Bhati, Kamlesh Kumar Devasi, Goa Electric Store, and Amar Electricals and Electronics. They are challenging proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Panaji, and other respondents. The specific assessment years and the nature of the proceedings under challenge are not detailed in the provided text. The procedural history indicates that the petitioners have approached the High Court via writ petitions.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was the status of the proceedings that were under challenge in the writ petitions. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the proceedings under challenge have now been dropped. Based on this submission, the learned counsel for the Petitioner sought leave to withdraw the matter. The court was therefore not called upon to decide any substantive question of law or fact concerning the income tax proceedings themselves, but rather to consider the consequence of the proceedings being dropped and the petitioner's request to withdraw.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

3,4,6 to 11 siddhi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO.217 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.222 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.49 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.81 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.82 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.83 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.99 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.115 OF 2026

WRIT PETITION NO.217 OF 2025 PRAVIN BHATI

... PETITIONER Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) PANAJI AND 3 ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.222 OF 2025 KAMLESH KUMAR DEVASI

... PETITIONER Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) PANAJI AND 3 ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

WITH 2026:BHC-GOA:925-DB

3,4,6 to 11 WRIT PETITION NO.49 OF 2026 KAMLESH KUMAR DEVASI

... PETITIONER Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) PANAJI AND 3 ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.81 OF 2026 GOA ELECTRIC STORE, THR. ITS PARTNER

... PETITIONER Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) PANAJI AND 3 ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.82 OF 2026 GOA ELECTRIC STORE, THR. ITS PARTNER

... PETITIONER Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) PANAJI AND 3 ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.83 OF 2026 GOA ELECTRIC STORE, THR. ITS PARTNER

... PETITIONER Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) PANAJI AND 3 ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.99 OF 2026 AMAR ELECTRICALS AND 3,4,6 to 11 ELCTRONICS, THR. ITS PARTNER

... PETITIONER Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) PANAJI AND 3 ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.115 OF 2026 AMAR ELECTRICALS AND ELCTRONICS, THR. ITS PARTNER

... PETITIONER Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) PANAJI AND 3 ORS. ... RESPONDENTS

Ms. Pranaya Ramesh (Through V.C.) and Mr. Sahil Sardessai, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Susan Linhares, Standing Counsel for the Central Government, for the Income Tax Department-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Raviraj Chodankar, Standing Counsel for the Central Government, for the Union of India-Respondent No. 3 in Writ Petition No.99/2026 and Writ Petition No. 115/2026. CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES & AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, JJ. DATED :- 27th April, 2026 P.C.

1.

Learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that the proceedings under challenge in these petitions have now been dropped.

3,4,6 to 11 2. In this view of the matter, on instructions, learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the matter

3.

Petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn.

AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. Signed by: SHAKUNTALA ZALMI Designation: Personal Assistant Date: 28/04/2026 15:19:35

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →