SANJEEV AGARWAL vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28 & ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/15923/2023HC DelhiDLHC01051924202305 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petitions as all the issues required the determination of disputed facts. The court explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the petitioners' objections. Consequently, the petitions were disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to file their reply/objections before the Assessing Officer and to approach the Appellate Authority if the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer still proposed to pass an assessment order against them. No specific finding was made on the validity of the satisfaction note itself, as the court declined to delve into the merits.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Sanjeev Agarwal and Sudhir Agarwal, have filed writ petitions challenging a satisfaction note drawn by the competent authority. The respondents are the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 28, and others. The petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court. The core of the challenge lies in the grounds raised against the satisfaction note. The High Court noted that all issues require the determination of disputed facts and expressed an inclination not to entertain the petitions on that basis. The petitioners' counsel then sought permission to withdraw the writ petitions.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions that require the determination of disputed facts, particularly concerning a satisfaction note issued by the competent authority, under its writ jurisdiction? Assessee's Contention: The petitioners sought to challenge the satisfaction note on various grounds. While the specific grounds are not detailed, the request for withdrawal with liberty to approach the Assessing Officer and then the Appellate Authority suggests a procedural recourse was preferred over immediate High Court intervention on disputed facts. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court's observation that the issues require determination of disputed facts implies the revenue likely did not contest this point or that the court independently arrived at this conclusion.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Heard together (2 matters)

W.P.(C) 15923/2023
W.P.(C) 35/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

$~19 & 20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 15923/2023 CM APPL. 64145/2023 SANJEEV AGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Agarwal and Mr. Koustubh Desai, Advs.

versus

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Sr. Std. Counsel with Ms. Naincy Jain, Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Jr. SCs. 20 + W.P.(C) 35/2024 CM APPL. 81/2024

SUDHIR AGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankit Agarwal and Mr. Koustubh Desai, Advs.

versus

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 28 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Sr. Std. Counsel with Ms. Naincy Jain, Ms. Madhavi Shukla, Jr. SCs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

05.02.2026 O R D E R 1. By way of the present writ petitions, petitioner has challenged the satisfaction note, which has been drawn by the competent authority on a number of grounds. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 13:15:14

2.

All the issues require determination of disputed facts; we are not inclined to entertain the same. 3. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the present writ petitions with liberty to file reply/objections, if any, before the Assessing Officer and take up the matter before the Appellate Authority, if the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer still proposes to pass an assessment order against him. 4. With a liberty as prayed, the petitions stand disposed of. 5. Needless to observe that we have not made any observation on merit of the petitioner’s objection or otherwise. 6. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. FEBRUARY 5, 2026/dd

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 13:15:14

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →