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

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/35/2024HC DelhiDLHC01057449202305 February 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the writ petitions as all the issues required the determination of disputed facts. Consequently, the petitioners' counsel sought permission to withdraw the present writ petitions. The Court granted this permission with liberty to the petitioners to file their reply/objections before the Assessing Officer and to pursue the matter before the Appellate Authority if the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer proposed to pass an assessment order. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the petitioners' objections. The petitions were disposed of with the liberty granted, and pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Sanjeev Agarwal and Sudhir Agarwal, filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging a satisfaction note drawn by the competent authority. The respondents were the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 28, and others. The petitions sought to challenge the satisfaction note on multiple grounds. The High Court noted that all issues required 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 challenging a satisfaction note when the issues require determination of disputed facts? (Question of law and fact, turning on the scope of writ jurisdiction). Assessee's Contention: The petitioners sought to challenge the satisfaction note on various grounds. (Specific grounds not detailed in the judgment). Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, was the respondent. (Specific arguments not recorded in the judgment). Additional Point: The petitioners sought liberty to file objections before the Assessing Officer and approach the Appellate Authority if an assessment order was passed.

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 13:12:49

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 13:12:49

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →