ANUSHKA GARG(JAIN) vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE THROUGH ADDITIONAL CIT, DELHI AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers
CWP/6471/2022HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01031723202221 July 2026Bench: JUSTICE (TO BE NOMINATED),MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that similar writ petitions challenging notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, have been disposed of by the Coordinate Bench, citing the Supreme Court's decision in 'Ashish Agarwal vs. Union of India and others'. The Court also observed that another writ petition, 'Pure Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union Of India And Others', was dismissed on similar grounds. Given that the petitioner's prayer was not opposed by the respondents and in view of the consistent disposal of similar matters, the High Court decided to dispose of the present petition in terms of the order passed in 'Ashish Agarwal (supra)'. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the aforementioned order.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Anushka Garg, 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, particularly those challenging notices under Section 148, have been disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court. The counsel referred to a judgment in 'Ashish Agarwal vs. Union of India and others' and another writ petition, 'Pure Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union Of India And Others', which was dismissed on similar grounds. The petitioner's prayer was not opposed by the respondents.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid and sustainable in law, considering the facts and circumstances of the case? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that similar writ petitions challenging notices under Section 148 have been disposed of by the Coordinate Bench, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Ashish Agarwal vs. Union of India and others'. The petitioner also referred to the dismissal of another writ petition, 'Pure Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union Of India And Others', on similar grounds. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue. However, the petitioner's prayer was not opposed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

310

ANUSHKA G

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 3.

L 1 N THE HIGH COURT OF PU AT CHANDIGA

GARG (JAIN)

Versus FACELESS ASSESSMENT CE

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

***** Mr. Sunil Kumar Mukhi, Advoca or the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing Cou 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. Learned counsel for the petitio

UNJAB & HARYANA ARH

CWP-6471 6471 6471 6471-2022 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 unsel 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 oner states that in all connect

026 s the the 022 rs’, vs. Milk tice this ted RENU SHARMA 2026.07.24 12:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

matters on the passed in Ashi 4.

In of orders passe 5.

21.07.2026 Renu Sharma

Whether sp

Whether re 2 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

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

der d. rms RENU SHARMA 2026.07.24 12:08 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 →