M/S OMAXE WORLD STREET PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/16773/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01090286202529 May 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in terms of a consensus reached between the parties and in light of the judgment in Jyoti Sareen's case (supra), allowed the petition. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as granted in the aforementioned case. Consequently, the impugned notice dated 30.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and all consequential proceedings were quashed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and proceedings. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Omaxe Limited, filed a writ petition (WP-16773-2025) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The petition challenged an action by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-I. The specific action under challenge appears to be a notice dated 30.03.2023 issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with consequential proceedings. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The matter was heard through Video Conference. The parties agreed to a consent order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought to be entitled to the same relief as granted in a previous judgment of the High Court in CWP-15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. Union of India and others, dated 10.09.2026. The assessee relied on the principle established in the Jyoti Sareen case. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that learned counsel for the parties agreed that the petitioner would also be entitled to the same relief as has been granted in the Jyoti Sareen case. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue beyond this consensus.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

145 145 145 145

IN T IN T IN T IN T M/S OMAXE M/S OMAXE M/S OMAXE M/S OMAXE DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM DEPUTY COM AND OTHER AND OTHER AND OTHER AND OTHER

CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HO HO

HO HO

Present : M M (T M M for **

DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB DEEPAK SIB 1.

Le also be entitled this Court date Union of India 2.

In terms of Jyoti notice dated 3 Income Tax Ac

11.09 11.09 11.09 11.09.2026 .2026 .2026 .2026 Vandana yadav

THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH AT CHANDIGARH

CW CW CW CW Da Da Da Da

WORLD STREET PRIVATE WORLD STREET PRIVATE WORLD STREET PRIVATE WORLD STREET PRIVATE VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS VERSUS MMISSIONER OF INCOME T MMISSIONER OF INCOME T MMISSIONER OF INCOME T MMISSIONER OF INCOME T RS RS RS RS

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEP DEEP DEEP DEEP ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNI Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Advocate and s. Shruti Garg, Advocate, for the Through VC) r. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C r. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing Co r the respondents-Income Tax D *** BAL AL BAL AL, J. , J. , J. , J.(O (O (O (Oral ral ral ral) earned counsel for the parties a d to the same relief as has been ed 10.09.2026 passed in CWP- a and others. n the light of the above consen i Sareen’s case (supra), resulting 30.03.2023 issued to the petitio ct, 1961 alongwith consequential

Whether speaking/reasoned. : Ye Whether Reportable. : Ye AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA AB AND HARYANA H WP WP WP WP-16773 16773 16773 16773-2025 2025 2025 2025 ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : ate of Decision : 11.09. 11.09. 11.09. 11.09.2026 2026 2026 2026

LIMITED LIMITED LIMITED LIMITED ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER ...PETITIONER TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE I

...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENTS PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL PAK SIBAL ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH ISH BINDLISH e petitioner. Counsel with unsel, epartment.

agree that the petitioner would n granted through a judgment of -15791-2024 – Jyoti Sareen vs. nsus, the petition is allowed in g in quashing of the impugned oner under Section 148 of the l proceedings, if any. (DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL DEEPAK SIBAL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH) (SUNISH BINDLISH)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE es/No es/No

d f . n d e VANDANA YADAV 2026.09.13 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →