Vikas Aggarwal v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-01, Shimla and others

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Vikas Aggarwal appears in CMP 23789/2026 in CWP 7002/2024, dated 21 September 2026. Paragraph 3 reproduces a challenge to a section 148A(d) order and section 148 notice dated 31 August 2024, including section 151 sanction and jurisdiction grounds. Paragraph 4 narrates earlier disposal on 25 June 2025 with protection pending the Supreme Court decision. The source gives no assessment year.

Source: PDF pp.1–2,caption and paras 3–4

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

The Court reproduces paragraphs 18–24 of Income Tax Officer v. Tej Partap Singh, Civil Appeal 4716/2026, identified as dated 10 April 2026. The excerpt records competing arguments on the amendment, declines merits adjudication at that stage, and remits matters with liberty to challenge section 147A. Paragraph 6 explains that procedural course; this note reports the excerpt as printed, without independently certifying the cited judgment or current law.

Source: PDF pp.3–4,paras 5–6

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

Page 1 allows CMP 23789/2026 and directs recall, revival and restoration, but its printed reference is 24 February 2026/CWP 2005/2026, conflicting with this caption and paragraph 4. Under the repeated CWP 7002/2024 heading, the Court records consent and closes the petition with liberty to approach afresh on the same cause, challenge section 147A and seek relief arising from subsequent developments. Pending applications are disposed of.

Source: PDF pp.1–2 and 4–5,recall text and paras 2,7–8

4. OUTCOME

Paragraph 7 continues the earlier protection for 90 days from 21 September 2026 and states that it ceases if the petitioner does not approach the Court within that period. This is procedural liberty with conditional temporary protection, not a finding that the notice is invalid or the amendment unconstitutional. Later filing, compliance and continued protection are unverified.

Source: PDF p.5,paras 7–8

5. Expert Comments

AKHB editorial analysis, distinct from the Court’s findings.

Caption identity does not cure the recall contradiction

CMP 23789/2026 in CWP 7002/2024 is printed in the caption and the writ number is repeated onpage 2. Those identifiers support retaining this distinct record. They do not authorize replacing CWP 2005/2026 or 24 February 2026 in the recall paragraph. The competing 25 June 2025 narrative is also retained. A corrected judicial record or earlier authenticated order is needed before asserting precisely which earlier judgment was recalled.

Source: PDF p.1 · PDF p.2

Fresh proceedings are permitted, not decided in advance

The final paragraph allows a fresh approach on the same cause and a challenge to section 147A, with relief based on subsequent developments. It does not allow the underlying quashing prayer on its merits. Likewise, the rival amendment arguments within the quoted Supreme Court passage are submissions, not a High Court holding that retrospective legislation is valid or invalid.

Source: PDF p.2 · PDF p.3 · PDF p.4 · PDF p.5

The protection is conditional and the clocks are different

The High Court’s 90-day period runs from this order. The four-week amendment period and following three-week Revenue response period appear inside the Supreme Court quotation and must not replace that direction. The source says protection ceases upon failure to approach within 90 days; it does not establish a later filing or an indefinite stay after filing. Actual continuing relief requires the subsequent docket.

Source: PDF p.4 · PDF p.5