Virendra Swarup Agarwal Thru. His Power Attorney Ms. Shalini Rastogi v. Principal Director Of Income Tax (Inv) Lko. And 4 Others

1. Facts of the case

Virendra Swarup Agarwal Thru. His Power Attorney Ms. Shalini Rastogi pursued the captioned writ against the income-tax investigation authorities. The short order records that the matter was heard but does not describe the underlying search or assessment facts.

Source: PDF p.1, complete supplied order

2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court

The Bench called for pleadings and the case-specific satisfaction note before further consideration.

Source: PDF p.1, complete supplied order

3. Judicial decision

Respondents were allowed four weeks for a counter-affidavit and the petitioner one week thereafter for rejoinder. List as fresh on 12 September 2025; respondents were to produce the satisfaction note then. If action was taken meanwhile, the petitioner could apply for interim relief.

Source: PDF p.1, complete supplied order

4. Outcome / in whose favour

The writ remained pending. This order itself granted no stay.

Source: PDF p.1, complete supplied order

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.

The satisfaction note was called for before further consideration

For Virendra Swarup Agarwal in Writ Tax No. 680 Of 2025, the Court directed production of the case-specific satisfaction note at the 12 September 2025 fresh listing. Respondents had four weeks for their counter and the petitioner one further week for rejoinder. The direction obtains a record for consideration; it does not find the note absent, defective or sufficient.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order

An opportunity to seek interim relief is not a stay

If the authorities took action meanwhile, the petitioner could move an application for interim relief. The order did not itself prohibit action or grant that future application. The distinction is material when describing protection during the affidavit period.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order

Keep each petitioner’s record distinct

Several same-day writs use identical directions, but their petitioners, respondent arrays and docket numbers differ. The note required here must pertain to this case; common representation does not prove identical authorization or facts. The source states no search date, statutory provision, assessment year or merits finding from which a wider legal proposition could safely be drawn.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1, complete supplied order