GOA ELECTRIC STORE, THR ITS PARTNER vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PANAJI AND 3 ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/83/2026HC BombayHCBM05001429202527 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 in these petitions have now been dropped. Consequently, on instructions, the learned counsel for the Petitioner sought leave of the Court to withdraw the matter. The Court granted this leave. Therefore, the petitions were dismissed as withdrawn. The Court did not decide on the merits of any tax dispute or any specific legal question related to the Income Tax Act. The operative direction was to dismiss the petitions as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

These are a batch of eight 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 petitions were filed in 2025 and 2026. The specific assessment years and the nature of the income tax proceedings are not detailed in the provided excerpt. The procedural history relevant to the final order is that the proceedings under challenge were dropped by the revenue.

What were the issues?

The primary issue before the High Court was whether the writ petitions should be allowed to be withdrawn. The court had to decide on the consequence of the petitioner's submission that the proceedings under challenge have been dropped by the revenue. The petitioner's counsel, on instructions, sought leave to withdraw the matter. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment excerpt. No specific provisions of the Income Tax Act or case law were discussed in relation to the merits of the underlying tax proceedings, as the petitions were withdrawn.

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:923-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 15:18:34

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →