What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the petition as infructuous based on the submission by the Income Tax Department that no action would be taken. The merits of the case were not considered.

The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The Income Tax Department, through its counsel, submitted that no action would be taken pursuant to the said notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the writ petition had become infructuous due to the respondent's statement of not taking further action.

The Prl Commissioner of Income… vs G. Trinadha Rao, Visakhapatnam | Telangana High Court 2018

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPT No. 299 of 2017 • Abhimanyu Singh S/o Late Shrikant Singh, Aged About 35 Years R/o Raj Kishor Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Income Tax Department Through The Deputy Commissioner Central Circle, Central Avenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Benami Prohibition / Initiating Officer, Room No. 201, First Floor, Central Revenue Building Civil Lines, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Central Bank Of India, Through The Branch Manager Main Branch, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner : Shri Aniket Verma, Advocate on behalf of Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate For Respondents 2 & 3 : Shri Amit Kumrani, Advocate on behalf of Shri Amit Choudhary, Advocate For Respondents 1 & 4 : None present ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice

Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi

Order On Board 13.3.2024. 1. At the outset, learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3 submits that respondent No.3 has filed reply, in which it has been specifically mentioned that pursuant to notice dated 11.9.2017 (Annexure-P/1) issued by him, no action is going to be taken by them, therefore, instant petition need not be taken into further consideration. 2. In view of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since respondent No.3 is not going to take any action in

pursuance of notice dated 11.9.2017 (Annexure-P/1) against the petitioner, then this petition has become infructuous and accordingly, this may be disposed of. 3. In view of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this petition is disposed of as having become infructuous, without considering anything on its merit. Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Bini

JUDGE

THE PRL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. G. TRINADHA RAO, VISAKHAPATNAM

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments