MEENAKSHI JAIN vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE THROUGH ADDITIONAL CIT, DELHI AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6464/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01031791202221 July 2026Bench: JUSTICE (TO BE NOMINATED),MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Ashish Agarwal (supra). The Court noted that the petitioner's prayer was not opposed by the respondents. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order passed in Ashish Agarwal (supra). The Court also directed that any pending applications would stand disposed of accordingly. The judgment does not specify the exact terms of the order in Ashish Agarwal (supra) or the specific grounds on which the writ petition in 'Pure Milk Products Pvt. Ltd.' was dismissed, beyond stating it was on 'specific grounds'.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Meenakshi National Fan & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel stated that similar writ petitions concerning the same issue have been disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court in terms of the order passed in 'Ashish Agarwal Vs. Union of India and others'. The petitioner's prayer was not opposed by the respondents. The Court noted that another writ petition, CWP-21666-2021 titled 'Pure Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Of India And Others', challenging a notice under Section 148, was dismissed on specific grounds by separate orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Ashish Agarwal (supra), considering similar matters have been decided on the same issue. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition should be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Ashish Agarwal (supra), as similar writ petitions on the same issue have been decided in terms of that order. The petitioner's prayer was not opposed by the respondents. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue on this issue, other than not opposing the petitioner's prayer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

309

MEENAKSHI

NATIONAL F ANR.

CORAM: H

Present: M

ASHWANI KU 1.

S Income Tax A Coordinate Be titled as ‘Sada relying upon j Ashish Agarw 2.

A Products Pvt. under section Court today, v 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGA

I JAIN

Versus FACELESS ASSESSMENT CE

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROH

***** Mr. Sunil Kumar Mukhi, Advoca or the petitioner. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Jr. Standi Ms. Muskan Gupta, Jr. Standing C Mr. Vivek Sharma, Jr. Standing C or the respondents. ***** UMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) Similar writ petitions challengin Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’ ench of this Court vide order dat ashiv Capital Services Pvt. Ltd. judgment of the Supreme Court wal, (2023) 1 SCC 617. Another writ petition No.CWP- Ltd. Vs. Union Of India An 148 of the Act, on the specific g vide separate orders.

UNJAB & HARYANA ARH

CWP-6464 6464 6464 6464-2022 2022 2022 2022(O&M) (O&M) (O&M) (O&M) Date of decision: 21.07.20

....Petitioner NTRE (NFAC), DELHI AND

...Respondents EF JUSTICE HIT KAPOOR ate g Counsel ing Counsel, Counsel, Counsel, ng notice under section 148 of t ’) have been disposed of by t ted 20.04.2026 in CWP-4734-20 d. Vs. Union of India and other t in Union of India and others -21666-2021 titled as ‘Pure M d Others’, challenging the not grounds, has been dismissed by t

026 s the the 022 rs’, vs. Milk tice this RENU SHARMA 2026.07.24 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

L matters on the passed in Ashi 4.

In of orders passe 5.

21.07.2026 Renu Sharma

Whether sp

Whether re 2 Learned counsel for the petitio e same issue, the writ petitions ish Agarwal (supra). This prayer n that view of the matter, this p ed in Ashish Agarwal (supra). Pending applications, if any, shall

(ASHW

ACT

peaking/reasoned

: Y eportable

: Y

oner states that in all connect s be disposed of in terms of ord r of the petitioner is not opposed etition stands disposed of in ter l stand disposed of accordingly. WANI KUMAR MISHRA) ING CHIEF JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR)

JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No

ted der d. rms RENU SHARMA 2026.07.24 12:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →