SOLIS SALES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19512/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01104460202420 August 2026Bench: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE RUPINDERJIT CHAHAL2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notices issued under Section 148A(d) dated 04.04.2024 and notices under Section 148 dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with the order dated 30.03.2023. The Court found that these notices and orders were issued without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, and were contrary to the provisions of the Act. The reasoning was based on the binding precedent of the judgment in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that statutory provisions must be followed strictly and that administrative instructions cannot override legislative enactments. The ratio decidendi is that any action taken by tax authorities that bypasses mandatory procedural requirements stipulated in the Act, especially concerning faceless assessments, is liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction. The Revenue was granted liberty to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, if so advised. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Solis Sales India Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging notices issued under Section 148A(d) dated 04.04.2024 and notices under Section 148 dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with an order dated 30.03.2023. The Revenue, represented by Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel, accepted notice. The High Court noted that the issue involved in the present petition was squarely covered by a previous judgment of the same Court in CWP No. 21509 of 2023 (Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others), decided on 29.07.2024. The Court also observed that all pending applications were disposed of, and interim orders stood merged with the final order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether notices issued under Section 148A(d) dated 04.04.2024 and notices under Section 148 dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, and 30.03.2023, along with an order dated 30.03.2023, were validly issued in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly in light of the judgment in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner relied on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others, which held that circulars or instructions issued by the Board could not override statutory provisions or render them otiose. The Court's power under Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961, and Section 144B (7 & 8) could not be used to usurp legal provisions for the convenience of authorities or cause hardship to assessees. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue did not present any distinct arguments against the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench. The judgment notes that there was no occasion to distinguish or take a different view from what had already been held by the Coordinate Bench.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 119,Section 120,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 148A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-19512-202 122 IN TH SOLIS SALES INCOME TAX CORAM: H

H Present: M

f SANJEEV P

1.

Notice o 2. Mr. Ra respond 3. The iss view of titled a 29.07.2 C b p e m a a th th 24 (O&M)

Page 1 of 2 HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA CHANDIGAR S INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. X OFFICER **** HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJA **** Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing C for the respondent/Revenue. **** RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) of motion. anvijay Singh, Sr. Standing Coun dents/Revenue. sue involved in the present petiti f the judgment passed by this C as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of 024, wherein this Court held as un “16. We are in agreement w Coordinate Bench and hold that such by the Board could not have been iss provisions or to make them otiose enactments having financial be mandatorily. By exercising the power and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as S authorities cannot be allowed to usu heir own satisfaction and convenie he assessees. It also leaves confus AB AND HARYANA AT RH CWP-19512-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.08.2024 . . . . Petitioner . . . . Respondent EEV PRAKASH SHARMA AY VASHISTH Counsel ) nsel accepts notice on behalf of ion stands finally adjudicated in Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 India and others, decided on nder: with the view taken by the h circular or instructions sued to override statutory or obsolete. Legislative followed strictly and rs contained Sections 119 Section 144B (7 & 8), the rp the legal provisions to ence causing hardship to sion in the minds of the

) 4 r t f n 3 n MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.13 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-19512-202 ta p o b b C S th e fo a 2 s li 1 o o 4. Keeping The obs the pres notice u 5. All pen

August 12, 2024 Mohit goyal 1. Whethe 2. Whethe 24 (O&M)

Page 2 of 2 axpayers instructions and suppl provisions and 17. In view of the aforesaid occasion to distinguish or take a diff by the learned counsel for the revenu been held by the Coordinate Bench. 18. Keeping in view the Coordinate Bench (supra), notices i Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and t hereafter without conducting the envisaged under Section 144B of th found to be contrary to the provisio accordingly notices dated 28 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and ord set aside for want of jurisdiction. 19. The respondents-revenue iberty to follow the procedure as l 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so a 20. All the writ petitions a order passed by the Court shall stand order.” g in view above, we allow this W servations and order passed abov sent case. Accordingly, order u/s u/s 148 dated 04.04.2024 are quas nding applications also stand dispo

(SANJ 4 r speaking/reasoned?

Y r reportable?

Y lementing the statutory d discussion, there is no fferent view as suggested ue from what has already law laid down by the issued by the JAO under the proceedings initiated faceless assessment as he Act, 1961, have been ons of the Act, 1961 and 8.02.2023, 16.03.2023, der dated 30.03.2023, are e would be, however, at laid down under the Act, advised. re allowed. The interim d merged with the present Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. e shall apply mutatis mutandis to s 148A(d) dated 04.04.2024 and shed. osed of accordingly. JEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No

. o d MOHIT GOYAL 2024.08.13 11:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 119

All 707 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →