VIJAY IMPEX vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/17269/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:40763-DB11 September 2025Author: PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, dated 26.06.2025, was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). Citing the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Shree Cement Limited, the court found merit in the petitioner's submission that such a notice was not valid. The court quashed and set aside the impugned notice. However, to accommodate the revenue's submission regarding a pending SLP in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case before the Apex Court, the court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision impacts the validity of notices issued in similar circumstances. The petition was disposed of with these directions, keeping open the rights and contentions of both parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijay Impex, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The judgment notes that the notice was indeed issued by the charged JAO. The respondents are the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (National E-Assessment Centre), Central Board of Direct Taxes, and the Income Tax Officer. The date of the notice under challenge is 26.06.2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is valid when the faceless assessment regime is in place? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, which is contrary to the established legal position. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the revenue acknowledged that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been preferred in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice has been issued. The revenue requested that while the court may grant the petitioner's prayer, liberty should be granted to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes 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:40763-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17269/2025 Vijay Impex, A Partnership Firm, Having Its Principal Place Of Business At 106, 4-5, Kardhar Complex, Sector 14, Hiran Magri, Udaipur, 313002, Rajasthan Through Its Partner Manoz Kumar S/o Shree Ram Lal Agarwal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Fatehnagar, Changeri, Udaipur, 313205, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-2, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub City Centre, Savina, Udaipur. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax (National E Assessment Centre), 2Nd Floor, E Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium Delhi - 110003 3. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Cbdt Headquarters North Block (Department Of Revenue), New Delhi - 110001 4. Income Tax Officer, Ito Ward-2(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Sub City Centre, Savina, Udaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

Order 11/09/2025

1.

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).

2.

Indisputably, the notice to petitioner has been issued by the charged JAO and not FAO. (Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 11:53:25 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:14 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:40763-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-17269/2025]

3.

Mr. Sharad Kothari, learned counsel for petitioner is correct in Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others.

4.

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.

5.

Therefore, keeping open rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 26.06.2025 (Annexure-2) issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition is disposed of.

7.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANDEEP TANEJA), J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 6-Ravi Khandelwal Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 15/09/2025 at 11:53:25 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:15 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →