GIST MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED (2017-18) vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/5734/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:35991-DB12 August 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the notice dated 28.03.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary reason for this decision was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The Tribunal found merit in the petitioner's submission that this issue had been extensively dealt with in prior High Court judgments, including Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited. While acknowledging the revenue's submission regarding an ongoing SLP in the Hexaware case and their request for liberty to revive the notice, the Tribunal proceeded to quash the notice. However, the Tribunal granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, contingent upon any adverse decision by the Apex Court in the aforementioned cases.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gist Minerals Technologies Limited, is challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2017-18. The petitioner contends that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which is contrary to the established procedure. The respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, sought time to file a reply, but the Court was not inclined to grant further adjournments, noting previous delays. The Court acknowledged that the issue of notice issuance by JAO instead of FAO had been extensively dealt with in previous High Court judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice is invalid as it was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, relying on the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)1, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another2, and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others3. Revenue's Contention: The revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued by the JAO. They submitted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was preferred in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued by the Apex Court. The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JD:35991-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5734/2025 Gist Minerals Technologies Limited (2017-18), Having Its Registered Office At Village Bedla, Udaipur City, Udaipur, Girwa, Rajasthan, India, 313001, Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Sumeet Agarwal, Son Of Shyam Sunder Agarwal, Age 48 Years, Having Residence At Bunglow No.4 Anand Vihar Colony, M.m Choubey Ward, Katni -483501 (Mp). ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1, Aaykar Bhawan, Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan, 313001. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajat Sharma. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 12/08/2025

1.

At the outset, respondent is seeking ten days’ time to file reply, but we are not inclined to grant any further time for the reason being counsel for revenue was present before this Court on 11th March 2025 when interim order was granted to petitioner. Even on 28th July 2025 when interim order was continued, counsel for revenue had sought one week’s to file reply. That one week’s time got over on 4th August 2025. 2. One of the primary grounds raised is that notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). (Uploaded on 13/08/2025 at 04:23:33 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:23 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:35991-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-5734/2025]

3.

Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)1, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another2 and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others3. 5. Shri Bissa submitted that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition and notice has been issued. Counsel states that in view of the law as it stands today, Court may grant the prayer of petitioner but in case the Apex Court interferes with judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), then Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.

6.

Therefore, keeping open rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7.

Petition disposed.

8.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 17-a.asopa/- 1 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 13/08/2025 at 04:23:33 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:23 PM)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →