A Division Bench of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court permitted a taxpayer to amend its writ petition to challenge S.O. 386 of 2023 after the respondents objected that the original challenge omitted that notification.
Judge / Bench — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M A Chowdhary, Judges
The petition already questioned a tax order and related Central Tax notifications, including their validity under section 168A of the CGST Act. The proposed challenge directly connected with those issues and was necessary for effective adjudication. The objection that omission amounted to abandonment did not justify refusing amendment at that stage. The amendment was allowed subject to all just exceptions, with maintainability and merits left open for contest. Counsel should distinguish permission to add a necessary challenge from adjudication of that challenge or validation of the underlying tax case.
Case — Lahori Eicher v. UT of J&K and others · CM No. 2206/2026 in WP(C) No. 2215/2025 c/w WP(C) Nos. 2206/2025, 2210/2025 and 2214/2025 · 2026-10-12 · Jammu wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioner — Mr. Sachin Sharma, Advocate. Respondents 1–4 — Ms. Priyanka Bhat, Advocate, vice Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG. Respondent 5 — Mr. Dheeraj Nanda, CGSC.