Haryana Telecom Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Sonepat and others

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

Haryana Telecom challenged the section 226(3) notice of 20 March 2007. The Court had issued notice of motion and stayed recovery. Counsel for the tax respondents then stated, on instructions, that the challenged notice had been withdrawn.

Source: PDF p.1

2. DISCUSSION BY THE COURT

Withdrawal removed the subject requiring adjudication. The Court did not decide whether the notice was unlawful or determine the underlying demand.

Source: PDF p.1

3. JUDICIAL DECISION

The writ was dismissed as having become infructuous.

Source: PDF p.1

4. OUTCOME

The identified recovery notice stood withdrawn according to Revenue’s recorded statement; no judicial quashing, tax deletion or refund was ordered.

Source: PDF p.1

5. Expert Comments

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

Withdrawal explains the formal dismissal

The taxpayer’s challenge ended because the Department withdrew the instrument, not because the Court upheld it. Both the withdrawal and the infructuous disposal belong in the outcome. Describing only a taxpayer defeat or only a merits quashing would be misleading.

Source: PDF p.1

The earlier stay was procedural history

The order records that recovery had been stayed before the withdrawal. It does not grant a new perpetual stay against every demand. The scope of any future recovery or a later notice cannot be determined from this single-page disposal.

Source: PDF p.1

No underlying liability finding should be inferred

The PDF identifies the notice and section but gives no assessment year, demand amount or grounds of challenge. It establishes no exemption or repayment entitlement. The precise notice date and writ docket distinguish the withdrawn instrument from other possible proceedings.

Source: PDF p.1