IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 20806 of 2008 Date of Decision: October 26, 2009 M/s Bharat Medical Store …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 4. Mr. Sanjay Bansal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Prashant Bansal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. It is not disputed that the petitioner has already filed appeal against the order of assessment which has emanated from notice dated 18.10.2007 (P-1). The allegation with regard to notice dated 18.10.2007 (P-1) is that it is a bogus document in order to save the period of limitation. A perusal of the memorandum of appeal (R-1) shows that similar grounds have been pleaded before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in respect of the assessment year 2006-07 passed in pursuance to the impugned notice (P-1). It is also conceded position that assessment order thereafter was passed on 28.12.2008 (P- C.W.P. No. 20806 of 2008 14). Accordingly, once the remedy of appeal has been availed and is pending, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. Moreso, disputed questions of fact are involved which can be appropriately decided by the appellate forum. Accordingly, the instant petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the appeal. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) October 26, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2