HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT · SOURCE-REVIEWED PROCEDURAL ORDER
Puja Mahant v. Income Tax Officer, Ward Kullu and others
CMP No.14028/2026 in CWP No.15546/2025; CMP No.23839/2025 ·
Supplied procedural order; no neutral citation printed
Writ revived with pleading directions and interim protection. Identified later 8 October 2026 closure and conditional 90-day protection reported.
Division Bench · Vivek Singh Thakur · Ranjan Sharma
1. Facts of the case
The application sought restoration of CWP 15546/2025, challenging a Section 148 notice dated 14 March 2024 and Section 151 approval. The earlier disposal of 25 September 2025 had deferred the issue to the Supreme Court. The present order refers to its 10 April 2026 decision in Civil Appeal 4716/2026, Income Tax Officer v. Tej Partap Singh.
Source: Supplied PDF pp.1–2 and identified earlier judgment p.1
2. Discussion by the Hon’ble Court
The application was allowed and the writ revived with its original number and applications. Reply was directed within two weeks and listing fixed for 17 August 2026; no separate rejoinder direction appears in this order. In CMP 23839/2025, the Court reproduced paragraph 27 of the cited Supreme Court order concerning interim stay during pendency of High Court writs, subject to terms imposed by the High Court.
3. Judicial decision
CMP 14028/2026 was disposed of after recall and revival. The cited interim protection was extended in the pending writ and the interim application disposed of. This order did not finally decide the reassessment notice’s validity.
4. Outcome / in whose favour
The petitioner obtained revival and interim protection; tax-notice merits remained open. Read also the identified later 8 October 2026 closure and conditional 90-day protection.
5. Expert Comments
AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings. Subsequent treatment and current-law applicability have not been verified.
Restoration reopened the controversy; it did not determine notice validity
Recall restored the writ under its original number and reopened the controversy. The Court relied on the identified Supreme Court decision for that procedural course. It neither quashed the Section 148 notice nor adjudicated the validity of the Section 151 sanction. Disposal of the restoration application should not be mistaken for disposal of the revived writ on tax merits.
Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.1
The source conflict has independent, traceable reconciliation
The 10 August 2026 order prints a recalled date of 25 September 2026, which lies in the future. The actual earlier judgment, fresh official record and 8 October 2026 later order establish 25 September 2025. This note uses that independently evidenced prior date while preserving and disclosing the original print.
Source: PDF p.1 · Fresh official register and source reconciliation · PDF p.1
The pleading direction and interim application remain distinct
Reply was directed within two weeks and listing fixed for 17 August 2026; no separate rejoinder direction appears in this order. These historical pleading directions create no new period on publication. The separate interim application was disposed of after extending the quoted protection, tied to pending writ proceedings and High Court terms; this was no permanent bar to reassessment.
Source: PDF pp.1–2 · PDF pp.1–2
The later order changes how this interim stage should be used
The identified 8 October 2026 order closes this writ with liberty to approach afresh on the same cause, challenge Section 147-A and seek other relief arising from subsequent developments. Earlier protection continues 90 days from that order and ceases if the petitioner fails to approach within that period. Subsequent fresh filing and compliance are unverified. This interim stage must not be described as an indefinite current stay.
Source: Later8October2026 order, PDF p.5 · Identified8October2026 later order, PDF pp.4–5
Source and verification
Supplied and fresh official renditions fully read and visually inspected; bytes preserved. Prior and later orders are identified below.
Source SHA-256: 178f545444999f5b7553bbe9fdd9446b591458a59901c3840ef4f0746d5ab678
Provisions and historical figures are recorded only as addressed in this judgment. No current statutory position or subsequent-treatment clearance is represented.
Source checked 2026-10-24. Identified 8 October 2026 order: closure with liberty to approach afresh; earlier protection continued 90 days, ceasing on failure to approach within that period. Subsequent fresh filing and compliance are unverified.
AI disclosure and professional disclaimer
This AKHB research note was prepared with AI assistance from an identified primary report. Independent human review is not represented.
General legal and tax research only; not legal or tax advice. Verify the complete judgment, applicable statutory version and subsequent treatment before reliance. The AKHB Expert Comments is editorial analysis, not the Court’s holding. No current-law clearance is claimed.