GAZE FASHION TRADE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/6025/2025HC 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 24.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary reasoning was based on the established legal position, as extensively dealt with in the cases of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited, which held that such notices issued by the JAO instead of the FAO were invalid. The Tribunal granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the event the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The petition was disposed of with this liberty preserved, keeping open the rights and contentions of both parties. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Gaze Fashion Trade Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended 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. The Court noted that the respondent had previously sought and been granted time, and the interim order in favor of the petitioner was in place since March 17, 2025. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated, nor is the specific amount in dispute.

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 Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was 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. The counsel for the revenue stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was preferred in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice 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. 6025/2025 Gaze Fashion Trade Limited, Registered Office At Village Bedla Udaipur City Udaipur Girwa Rajasthan India 313001 Through Its Authorized Representative Mr Sumeet Agarwal Son Of Shyam Sunder Agarwal Having Residence At Bunglow No 4 Anand Vivhar Colony M M Choudey Ward Mp ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 Aaykar Bhawan Subcity Centre Savina Udaipur Rajasthan ----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 04:22:41 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:35991-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-6025/2025]

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 24.03.2024 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 21-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 04:22:41 PM) (Downloaded on 27/10/2026 at 11:21:33 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 →