Can a foreign law firm be taxed on a PAN it says it never asked for? The Delhi High Court has not answered that yet, but it has barred Coercive Tax Recovery from Singapore-based maritime law firm Holman Fenwick Willan Singapore LLP until the Income Tax Department files its reply.
New Delhi: A maritime law firm that says it has no presence in India and never applied for a Permanent Account Number has won interim protection from the Delhi High Court against recovery of a tax demand raised on the basis of that PAN. The Court directed the Income Tax Department not to take any coercive measure to recover the demand against Holman Fenwick Willan Singapore LLP, which has challenged the assessment order passed against it [Holman Fenwick Willan Singapore LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 2(1)(1), New Delhi].
A Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Dr. Justice Aditi Choudhary passed the order on October 16, 2026.
Three weeks for the Department
The Court directed Senior Standing Counsel Puneet Rai to appear in the matter. He sought, and was granted, three weeks to complete instructions and file a short counter affidavit. The matter was listed on November 18, 2026, and the Bench recorded the interim protection in these words:
“Till then, the respondents shall not take any coercive measure for recovery of the demand raised by assessment order dated 09.05.2025 and consequential demand notice dated 24.12.2025 issued to the petitioner.”
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Quashes Rs 3.91 Crore Tax Demand Against Security Guard Without Evidence
The orders under challenge
The writ petition takes aim at three orders: the assessment order dated May 9, 2025, the penalty order dated December 24, 2025, and the notice of demand issued in consequence on December 24, 2025.
A PAN the firm says it never sought
Advocate Vibhooti Malhotra, appearing for the firm, submitted that the petitioner is a maritime law firm with no presence in India and has therefore never applied for a Permanent Account Number. According to the petition, the Department itself allotted a PAN to the firm and then passed the assessment order behind its back. These are the petitioner’s assertions, and the Department is yet to file its response.
The Court has not ruled on the validity of the assessment, the penalty or the PAN allotment. Those questions remain open for the next hearing.
Why the order matters
An assessment is meant to be made after the taxpayer has had a chance to respond. Where a foreign entity says it never sought a PAN, never had a presence in India and learnt of the assessment only after a demand was raised, the complaint goes to the basic fairness of the process, and the High Court’s writ jurisdiction is often the only quick route to pause recovery while that complaint is examined.
Interim protection against coercive recovery is a common holding measure in such cases. It does not decide whether the tax is payable. It keeps the demand from being enforced until the Department explains how the PAN came to be allotted and how the assessment was completed, so the dispute can be decided on a full record.
Case Title: Holman Fenwick Willan Singapore LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 2(1)(1), New Delhi [W.P.(C) 15510/2026 and CM APPL. 72794/2026]
Bench: Justice Dinesh Mehta and Dr. Justice Aditi Choudhary, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 16, 2026
For the Petitioner: Vibhooti Malhotra, Bhuvnesh Satija and Aniket Khanduri, Advocates
For the Respondent: Puneet Rai, Senior Standing Counsel, with Ashwini Kumar and Rishabh Nangia, Junior Standing Counsel