Suresh Kumar v. Principal Comthers

Page 1 of 3 130 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJACHANDIGARB AND HARYANA AT H CWP-25321-2024Date of Decision: 03.10.2024 Suresh Kumar . . . . Petitioner Vs. Principal Comthers . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMAJAY VASHISTH **** Present: MMr r.Viraj Gandhi, Advocate and r. Adarsh Dubey, Advocate fo Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. StandingMfr. Vaibhav Gupta, Advocate or the respondents/Revenue. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) 1.Notice 2.Mr. Yoof motion. gesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf ofrespond2.Mr. Yoof motion. gesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf ofrespond 3.Both thad idem that the issue involved in the presentpetition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit SinghCWP vs. Union of India and others,decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in No.157CWPgh Bhangu vs. Union of Indiaand oth45 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Siners, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra)held as under: petition stands finally examined and concluded by this Court in No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit SinghCWP vs. Union of India and others,decided on 29.07.2024, and by the Coordinate Bench in No.157CWPgh Bhangu vs. Union of Indiaand oth45 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Siners, decided on 19.07.2024. This Court in Jasjit Singh (supra)held as under: “16. We are in agreemenby the Coordinate Bench and holinstructions by the Board could noverride statutory provisions or tobsolete. Legislative enactment with the view taken d that such circular or ot have been issued to o make them otiose or ts having financial i followed strictly and mSmplications are required to beandatorily. By exercising the ections 119 and 120 of the ASection 144B (7 & 8), the aallowed to usurp the legal prosatisfaction and convenience caassessees. It also leaves confusiotaxpayers. In the opinion of thand circulars can be issued onsupplementing the statutory proimplementation. 17. In view of the aforesano occasion to distinguish or tasuggested by the learned counsewhat has already been held by thC18. Keeping in view the oordinate Bench (supra), noticunder Section 148 of the Act, 196initiated thereafter without conassessment as envisaged underAct, 1961, have been found tolaw laid down by the es issued by the JAO 1 and the proceedings ducting the faceless Section 144B of the be contrary to the pdrovisions of the Act, 1961 anated 28.02.2023, 16.03.202d accordingly notices 3, 20.03.2024 and 303.2023, are set aside f0.03.2023 and order dated 30.or want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenat liberty to follow the procedurthe Act, 1961 and proceed accord20. All the writ petitioninterim order passed by the Couue would be, however, e as laid down under ingly, if so advised. s are allowed. The rt shall stand merged with the present order.” 4.Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaidterms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatismutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice issued byJurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 dated 27.03.2024(P-1) as well as the consequential proce 5.All pending applications also stand disp (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE October 03, 2024 rashmi 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No2. Whether reportable? Yes/No2. Whether reportable? Yes/No