Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Himachal Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30710 (HP)

M/S HIMACHAL POLYLEFINS LTD v. THE UOI AND OTHERS

CWP/16398/2025 · 2025-10-17

Ajay Mohan Goel, Romesh Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:HHC:35439 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.16398 of 2025 Decided on: 17.10.2025 M/s Himachal Polyolefins Ltd. .… Petitioner. Versus Union of India & others …. Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1. M/s Neeraj Sharma and Ishan Kashyap, Advocates, for respondents No.2 to 4. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “i. That the impugned orders as contained in annexure P-4.P- 5,P-6 and P-7 may kindly be Quashed and set aside being arbitrary, illegal unjust and without sanction of law or; 35 ii. Alternatively the impugned proceedings contained in Ann P-4,P-5 P-6 and P-7 shall be kept in abeyance till a decision on quantum proceedings are pending; iii. Restrain the Respondents particularly Respondent no-4 from taking any coercive steps against the Petitioner with respect to P-4,P-5, P-6 and P-7 in any manner; iv. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent, its employees, agents, representative and any one acting on behalf 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:35439 of the Respondents, in any manner from giving effect to the (P-4,P-5, P-6 and P-7) in any manner” 2. In light of the fact that the petitioner has a statutory remedy available against the order under challenge, we are not entertaining this petition and the petitioner shall be at liberty to invoke the statutory remedy of appeal as is available under the provisions of the Income Tax Act. It goes without saying that the time that has been spent by the petitioner while pursuing this remedy before this Court shall be taken into consideration while calculating the limitation. 3. The petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge (Romesh Verma) Judge October 17, 2025 (Rishi)