NAMBIYUR KANNAN CIBI CHAKRAVARTHY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WP/2005/2026HC KarnatakaKAHC01004305202627 March 2026Bench: S SUNIL DUTT YADAV2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had filed a memo stating that the petitioner had instructed them to withdraw the Writ Petition. The court observed that the communication addressed to the counsel by the petitioner requested the withdrawal of the petition. Accordingly, the court ordered that the petition be dismissed as not pressed. The liberty as prayed for by the petitioner, to approach the court again if the need arises, was reserved. No decision was made on the merits of the challenge to the Section 143(2) notice.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Nambiyur Kannan Cibi Chakravarthy, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated March 16, 2025, for Assessment Year 2024-25. The notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 3(1), Bengaluru. The petitioner's counsel subsequently filed a memo before the High Court, stating that the petitioner had instructed them to withdraw the Writ Petition. The memo requested that the petition be disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to approach the court again if necessary.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2024-25, should be permitted to be withdrawn. The petitioner, through their counsel, argued that they had received instructions from the petitioner to withdraw the present Writ Petition. They prayed that the petition be disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to approach the Hon'ble Court again if the need arises. The respondent, represented by their counsel, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the withdrawal of the petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17506 WP No. 2005 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 2005 OF 2026 (T-IT) BETWEEN: 1. NAMBIYUR KANNAN CIBI CHAKRAVARTHY SON OF NAMBIYUR KAVUNDE GOUNDER KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D-302, STERLING RESIDENCY, RMV 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 094 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. SHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI HEMANT VENKATRAY PAI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 3(1), NO. 1, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI M. DILIP, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT DTD. 16.03.2025 FOR THE AY 2024-25 BY THE R-1 BEARING DIN ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2024-25/1074535299(1) HEREIN ENCLOSED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:17506 WP No. 2005 of 2026

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo which reads as hereunder: "The undersigned counsel respectfully submits that the above Writ Petition is pending before this Hon'ble Court and in terms of the annexed instructions received from the Petitioner, it is prayed that the present Writ Petition may be disposed as withdrawn with the liberty to approach this Hon'ble Court if the need so arises." 2. It is noticed that a communication is addressed to the learned counsel for the petitioner by the petitioner, requesting him to withdraw the petition. 3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as not pressed. Liberty as prayed for is reserved. SD/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →