GIST MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/6022/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:35991-DB12 August 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 28.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the notice was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, citing relevant precedents. While the Revenue conceded that the Court might grant the petitioner's prayer based on the current legal position, it sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. The Court, therefore, quashed the notice with liberty to the Revenue to revive it as prayed, keeping open the rights and contentions of both parties. The petition was disposed of on these terms, with all pending applications also disposed of.

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 petitioner argues that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, sought time to file a reply, but the Court noted that previous opportunities had been granted. The notice under challenge was dated 28.03.2024. The Court considered previous judgments on the issue of notices issued by JAO instead of FAO.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is valid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). - This issue has been extensively dealt with in precedents like 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 Contentions: - In Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), the Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition and notice has been issued. - In view of the law as it stands today, the Court may grant the prayer of the petitioner, but in case the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra), then the Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.

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. 6022/2025 Gist Minerals Technologies Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Village Bedla Udaipur City Udaipur Girwa Rajasthan India Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Sumeet Agarwal S/o Shyam Sundar Agarwal Age 48 Years, 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 Center 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 17th 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 04:24:38 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:30 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:35991-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-6022/2025]

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 20-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 04:24:38 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:30 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 →