Supreme Court – Daily Orders
M/S Harjistone Crusher vs State Of Punjab on 28 May, 2025
Bench: Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.2 SECTION IV-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 10162/2025
[Arising out of impugned judgment and order dated 25-11-2024 in CWP
No. 31151/2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh]
M/S HARJISTONE CRUSHER Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 125241/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING / CURING
THE DEFECTS, IA No. 125244/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND IA No. 125245/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING
O.T.)
WITH
Diary No(s). 23067/2025 (IV-B)
(IA No. 130458/2025 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No.
130462/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND IA No. 130464/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 28-05-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chritarth Palli, AOR
Ms. Harsheen M Palli, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Agam Agarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and on
Signature Not Verified
perusal of record, we find that the issue raised in these petitions
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.05.28
16:19:57 IST
Reason:
is squarely covered by the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by this
1
Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9396/2025 (M/s Jai Shanker Stone Crusher
v. State of Punjab & Ors.) where, in the identical circumstances,
this Court held as follows:
“4. We have noticed from the first prayer that apart
from the order dated October 01, 2024, which was passed
on the second appeal of the appellant, the revised
demand notice dated January 25, 2023 and the order of
re-assessment dated February 21, 2023 based on the
revised demand notice were also under challenge in the
writ petition. The impugned order does not reveal
examination of such challenge by the High Court and, to
this extent, learned counsel is right.
5. Having regard thereto, we are of the considered
opinion that the High Court ought to re-consider
whether the revised demand notice dated January 25,
2023 as well as the order of re-assessment dated
February 21, 2023 does warrant a judicial review on any
of the grounds available therefor.
6. Limited to that extent, we remand the writ petition
for fresh hearing by the High Court.
7. The special leave petition, accordingly, stands
disposed of.”
3. The instant Special Leave Petitions are also disposed of, in
the above terms.
4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(NITIN TALREJA) (PREETHI T.C.)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
2