Gurvinder Singh v. Income Tax Officer Nahan & Ors.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Gurvinder Singh sought withdrawal of CWP 11988/2025 in light of the Supreme Court decision in Income Tax Officer v. Tej Pratap Singh, Civil Appeal 4716/2026, dated 10 April 2026. Counsel requested liberty to approach afresh on the same cause and challenge section 147A.

Source: PDF pp.1–2

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

There was no opposition to the request. The Court accepted the procedural course sought, referring to counsel’s account of the Supreme Court remand and the liberty granted there. It did not decide the underlying tax challenge.

Source: PDF p.2, opening paragraph

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court afresh on the same cause of action and to assail section 147A of the Income-tax Act.

Source: PDF p.2, opening paragraph

4. OUTCOME

Protection under the order dated 25 July 2025 continues for 90 days from 22 September 2026. It ceases if the petitioner fails to approach the Court afresh within that period. Pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of.

Source: PDF p.2, paragraph 2

5. Expert Comments

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

Identify the protected order

The relief preserves protection already granted on 25 July 2025; it does not describe that protection in detail. Its precise reach must be read with the earlier order, rather than expanded into a fresh blanket restraint on every tax proceeding.

Source: PDF p.2, paragraph 2

Withdrawal leaves the merits open

The unopposed request explains why the petition ends without deciding section 147A or the original cause. Liberty to raise those matters again is a procedural benefit, not a finding that the petitioner has established a defect in reassessment.

Source: PDF pp.1–2

Separate filing from continued relief

The order expressly measures 90 days from its own date and terminates protection upon failure to file afresh within that period. It does not state that filing automatically extends the stay indefinitely; any later protection must be checked in the fresh proceedings.

Source: PDF p.2, paragraph 2