MASON INFRASTRRUCTURE PVT LTD vs. ITO, WARD 16(3) AND ORS.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5068/2026HC DelhiDLHC01015730202616 April 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the assessment order dated March 8, 2026, and the demand notice of even date. The Court found that these orders were in direct conflict with its previous order dated December 19, 2024, which was passed in the case of the very same assessee for the same assessment year. The Court appreciated the fair stand taken by the Revenue's counsel, who conceded that the order was passed due to a misconception. The reasoning was that the JAO proceeded to pass the impugned order without being aware of the High Court's earlier directive, leading to an inadvertent error. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed in contravention of a High Court's specific order concerning the same assessee and assessment year is liable to be set aside. The petition was allowed, and the operative direction was the quashing and setting aside of the impugned assessment order and demand notice. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mason Infraestructure Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 8, 2026, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The petitioner argued that this order, passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), conflicted with a previous order of the same High Court dated December 19, 2024, concerning the same assessee and assessment year. The petitioner sought to have the assessment order quashed and for action to be taken against the AO under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Revenue, through its Senior Standing Counsel, conceded that the impugned order was passed inadvertently due to a communication gap or misconception, as the earlier High Court order had not been brought to the JAO's notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order dated March 8, 2026, passed for AY 2015-16, is in conflict with the High Court's order dated December 19, 2024, thereby warranting its quashing? (Question of law and fact, concerning compliance with judicial orders). Assessee's Contentions: - The impugned assessment order is in direct conflict with the High Court's prior order dated December 19, 2024, passed in the petitioner's own case for AY 2015-16. - The order deserves to be quashed. - Appropriate action should be taken against the Assessing Officer under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Revenue's Contentions: - The impugned order was passed inadvertently due to some communication gap or misconception, as the earlier order dated December 19, 2024, could not be communicated or brought to the notice of the JAO. - The Revenue fairly conceded that the order, having been passed due to misconception, should be set aside.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~104 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5068/2026, CM APPL. 24827/2026, CM APPL. 24828/2026 MASON INFRASTRRUCTURE PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv. versus ITO, WARD 16(3) AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Senior Standing Counsel, Ms. Naincy Jain and Ms. Madhavi Shukla, JSCs and Mr. Udit Dad, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

16.04.2026 1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the assessment order dated 08.03.2026 passed for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by this Court in petitioner’s Writ Petition No. 17530/2024 AY 2015-16 and argued that the impugned assessment order dated 08.03.2026 which has been passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) is clearly in conflict with the order passed by this Court. 3. Learned Counsel submitted that not only the impugned order deserves to be quashed but appropriate action also needs to be taken against the AO as per the provision of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. Mr. Shlok Chandra, learned Senior Standing Counsel at the outset 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 20/04/2026 at 14:04:04

submitted that due to some communication gap or misconception, the earlier order dated 19.12.024 could not be communicated or brought to the notice of the JAO and hence, the impugned order came to be passed inadvertently. 5. He fairly conceded that since the order has been passed due to misconception, the same be set aside. 6. While appreciating Mr. Chandra for the fair stand he has taken, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated 08.03.2026 and demand notice of even date, which are in the teeth of order dated 19.12.2024 passed by this Court in the case of very same assessee. 7. The petition stands allowed accordingly. DINESH MEHTA, J VINOD KUMAR, J APRIL 16, 2026/ss 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 20/04/2026 at 14:04:04

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →