Shaik Karimunnisa, vs. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax

WP/3427/2026HC TelanganaHBHC01006305202606 February 2026Author: P.SAM KOSHY,NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA5 pages

AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court considered the submissions put forth by the learned senior standing counsel for Income Tax. Following these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for the withdrawal of the writ petition at that juncture, with liberty to avail remedies available under the law. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioner the liberty to pursue other legal remedies. No specific findings were made on the merits of the case, as the petition was withdrawn. The court also noted that any pending miscellaneous petitions would stand closed, and there would be no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shaik Karimunnisa, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad. The petition challenged the action of the Income Tax respondents in not providing relevant documents and proceedings pertaining to a demand notice issued to the petitioner, and for freezing her bank accounts. The petitioner contended that this action was taken despite her appearing before the respondent authorities as directed by the High Court in a previous writ petition. She also argued that the recovery proceedings were not conducted following due process of law and were arbitrary, violating her fundamental rights. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the relevant documents and to unfreeze her bank accounts.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the action of the respondents in not providing the relevant documents/proceedings/orders pertaining to the demand notice and freezing the bank accounts of the petitioner, despite her appearance and submissions, is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the Constitution of India (Articles 14, 19, and 265)? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents' actions were illegal, arbitrary, and violated her fundamental rights. She specifically pointed to the non-provision of documents related to the demand notice and the freezing of her bank accounts, alleging a failure to follow due process under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Income Tax (Certificate Proceedings) Rules, 1962. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the learned senior standing counsel for Income Tax appeared before the court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

t3M7l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIKTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3427 OF 2026 Between: Shaik Karimunnisa, Wo. Basheer, Aged about: 47 years, Occ. Private Rl/o.H.No.B-2- 3O3l l82lN435A Plot.No.374,Jubilee Hills, Road.No.1 Shaikpet, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, AP and TS, 1Oth Floor, C Block lT Towers 1023, AC Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana. Tax Recovery Officer-1 , O/o PCIT-1, Hyderabad. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6( 1 ), Hyderabad, Telangana. 4. The Assistant Commissioner of Telangana. lncome Tax, Circle 14( 1), Hyderabad, ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances slated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate Writ order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring action of Respondents in not providing the relevant documentsiproceedings/orders pertaining to the demand notice issued against Petitioner in form l.T.C.P.No.1 dt.21l0412025 and freezing the bank accounts of the Petitioner inspite the Petitioner appearing before the Respondent authorities on dl.22lO9l2O25 as per directions from this Honourable court in W.P.No.23884 of 2 3 '2025 and on dt.14l1ol2O25 and inspite Petitioner submitt t Respondent.No .2 on dt.27lO112026 without following d I contemplated under provisions of Second Schedule of lncot well as lncome Tax (Certificate Proceedings)Rules, 1962 anc to recover proceedings contemplated under lncome-Tax I arbitrary, against principles of natural justice and in violatiot guaranteed under Art 1 4,1 9 and 265 of the Constitution of lr ( 'direct the Respondents to provide relevant document pertaining to the demand notice issued against Petitioner d1.21 I 04 I 2025 and documentsiproceed ings/orders pertaining accounts of the Petitioner. g representation to .r process of law re-Tax Act 1961 as rrovisions pertaining ct 1961 as illegal, of Petitioners right ia and consequently /proceedings/orders r form l.T.C.P.No.'l o freezing the bank lA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirl umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma1 be pleased to direct the Respondents to unfreeze the bank accounts ofthe Petitic,r er, pending disposal of this present Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SIRIPURAM KESHAVA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDI) /, SENIOR S.C. INCOME TAX

- The Court made the following: ORDER

IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Writ Petition No.3427 of 2O26 Dat edz 06.02.2026 Between: Mrs.Shaik Karimunnisa AND The Principat Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, AP and TS. 10'h floor, C-Block, IT Towers, 1023, AC Guards, Hyderabad, Telangana' . . .Respondents ORDER, (par llon ble Sri.lustice P.Sam Koshy) llcard Mr.Siripuram Kaumud, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, leamed senior standing counsel lor Income Tax appearing on behalf of respondents' Perused the record.

Taking into consideration the submissions put-forth by the leamed senior standing counsel for Income Tax' leamed counsel lor the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the writ petition at this juncture with liberty to avail remedy available under [aw' I \ \ I . . . Petitioner

In view of the same, this rvrit petition is lismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed flor. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendin;g if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD/-AHtl/t :D ABDULLA KHAN AST; STANT REGISTRAR //// ,E.' To sEcTtoN OFFTCER

One CC to SRt SIRIPURAM KESHAVA, Advocate [OptJ )l

One CC to Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, Senior {i 1.. for tncome Tax loPUcI

Two CD Copies MP

{IGH COURT DATE D:0610212026 -::\- j;G.I* wz.-\. .di (1, TrtE ( \)'c ,l J. I { t .c) J-., * RDER PA-r, -' t WP.N,: .3427 ot 2026 DISMISSING THE V\I IIT PETITION AS T,VITHDRAWN wH'{our cosTs t8 a al

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →