FUo. Mumbai v. Hyderabad 500 004
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
Between: M/s. TPL-SUCG Consortium, Mithona Towers - 1, 1-7-80 to 87 Prenderghasl Road, 3L""rni"-r"-biO: SOO OOi, f"trngina, lndia. Represented by its authorized signatory frrti. Xiran Oattaram Surve 5lo Mr. Dattaram ilahipat Sune, Aged about 51 years, FUo. Mumbai ...PETITIONER
AND 1 Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, South block' New Delhi
2. Dv.. Director of lncome tax, centralized Processing centre ( cPC )' lncome Tix DePartment, Bengaluru
3. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), lncome Tax Department' New Delhi
4. Dy. Commissioner of lncome tax, Circle 6(1), lT Towers, A' C' Guards Hyderabad 500 004 ...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of lhe constitution of lndia praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction. more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari and Mandamus to. i. This Honourable Court be pleased to issue a Writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari to call for the records of the Respondents issuing the impugned notice dated 14th December' 2022 arrd passing of the lmpugned Order dated 1Sth December' 2O23 and quash the same andfurtherdirecttheRespondentstotreatthereturnofincomefiledbythe petitioner on 29th July 2022 as valid and or to issue any other appropriate writ or order as this Honorlrable cou( may deem fit and proper to tl're facts and circumstances of the rlase and in the interest of justice and equity' ii On in alternatrve, this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a Writ r:f ltr'landamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to pass an Assessment Order U/Sec. 144 rlw' Sect 144B of the Act for Assessment Year 2022-23. lA NO: 1 oF 2024 PetitionunderSectionl5lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsr.rpportofthepetition, the HighCourtmaybecleasedtostay the impugned order dated 1Sth December 2023' Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI DEEPAK CHOWDARY c o u n se I f o r th e Re s po n de nts : .rT: 331,'i,i3[ ="tJl-$ f fi B, ^ The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHTEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITTON No.1 S7L2 ot 2o24
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog paul) Sri Deepak Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that t].e writ petition has rendered infructuous a,d the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the same.
2. The prayer is allowed.
Operative part
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU ANT REGISTRAR AS ECTION OFFICER
One CC to SRI DEEPAK CHOWDARY, Advocate. tOpUCl 2. one cc to sRl GAD| PRAVEEN KUMAR, (Depury soricitor Generar of rMia), - -' -' - " 'e's,' High Court for the State of Tetangana at Hidelab;d. tOpUCl
Two CD Copies. BSR BSK HIGH COURT DATED:0 410212025 i \ ORDER WP.No.15712 of 2024 lttE S 14 r.t )?' 04 o 2 4 ti{l,ti 2rn*5 (, , ( t oFs"., t )r- DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRAWN WITHOUT COSTS rc., filk U" q1t\7\ -/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Telangana High Court, on 29 Jul 2022. The bench was SUJOY PAUL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.