DINESHBHAI MANEKLAL PATEL HUF THROU ITS KARTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1

PDF · subscribers
SCA/16141/2021HC GujaratGJHC24057720202126 October 2021Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK2 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, after hearing the learned advocate for the petitioner for some time, noted that Mr. Patel, on instructions, sought to withdraw the petition. Consequently, the Court disposed of the Special Civil Application as withdrawn. No decision was rendered on the merits of the challenge to the Section 148 notice or the preliminary order. The operative direction was solely to dismiss the petition as withdrawn. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the petition itself was withdrawn before any substantive adjudication.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dinesh Bhai Maneklal Patel HUF, through its Karta, filed a Special Civil Application before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The petition challenged a notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a preliminary order dated 10.09.2021 concerning reassessment proceedings. The petitioner sought to quash these notices and orders and sought interim relief to restrain the respondent Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, from enforcing compliance or taking further steps in the reassessment process. The matter was listed for hearing before a division bench of the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the preliminary order dated 10.09.2021 for reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). The petitioner's contention, as indicated by their prayer, was that the notice and the subsequent preliminary order were invalid and ought to be quashed. They sought interim relief to prevent the respondent from proceeding with the reassessment. The respondent, the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, was represented, but no specific arguments or contentions are recorded in the judgment for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

C/SCA/16141/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16141 of 2021 ========================================================== DINESHBHAI MANEKLAL PATEL HUF THROU ITS KARTA Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 ========================================================== Appearance: DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

Date : 26/10/2021

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to challenge the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act with the following reliefs:- “(A) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ direction or order to quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 31/03/2021 under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 annexed hereto at Annexure ‘B’ along with preliminary order dated 10/09/2021 annexed hereto at Annexure ‘F’ for proceeding and completing Reassessment proceedings. (B) Pending admission, hearing, and disposal of this petition, ad-interim relief be granted and the respondent be ordered to restrain from enforcing compliance of the impugned notice dated 31/03/2021 at Annexure ‘B’ and/or taking any other steps in this regard including reassessment order or implementation of preliminary order dated 10/09/2021 at Annexure ‘F’ and further notices Page 1 of 2

C/SCA/16141/2021 ORDER DATED: 26/10/2021 issued for purpose of reassessment. (C) Award the cost of this petition. (D) Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.” 2. After arguing for some time, learned advocate Mr. Patel, on instruction, seeks withdrawal. 3. The present petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. (SONIA GOKANI, J) (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Bhoomi Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →