M/s Vivek Ispat Udyog v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and two others

1. Facts of the case

The writ challenged reassessment for AY 2016-17. Revenue produced written instructions marked X and retained on record.

Source: PDF p.1, complete supplied order

2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court

The Court recorded that the Income Tax Officer (T&J) had directed the notice to be dropped and that, on counsel’s statement, it appeared proceedings would have been dropped.

Source: PDF p.1, complete supplied order

3. Judicial decision

The writ was dismissed as infructuous at that stage.

Source: PDF p.1, complete supplied order

4. Outcome / in whose favour

The writ ended on the departmental statement, without a merits ruling quashing reassessment.

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.

A direction to drop is not independent proof of completion

For AY2016-17, Revenue produced written instructions marked X and retained by the Court. The Court recorded that the notice had been directed to be dropped and inferred from counsel’s statement that the proceedings would have been dropped. The qualification matters: this is not an independently verified cancellation instrument or a judicial ruling that the original notice was unlawful.

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

The writ ends at this stage on the departmental position

The dismissal as infructuous rests on the apparent removal of the grievance, without deciding reassessment jurisdiction or another tax issue. A practitioner checking implementation would need the retained instructions and the departmental closure record. The words “at this stage” do not themselves grant a new remedy or establish what happened after 9 October 2025.

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