MIRAJ RETAILS PVT. LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/14287/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41274-DB16 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on the agreement between the parties that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the Court. Specifically, the Court acknowledged that a notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) has been held to be bad and invalid in the case of Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for the present, with liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited. The Court also stated that any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Miraj Retails Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Rajsamand. The core of the dispute revolves around the validity of the notice. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The revenue, while agreeing that a ground raised is covered by a High Court judgment, indicated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed against a relevant precedent. The parties agreed to a conditional quashing of the notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated 31.03.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is valid? (Question of law). Assessee's Contention: The notice is bad in law and not valid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agrees that one of the grounds raised is covered by a judgment of the Court. However, it is stated that an SLP has been filed against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The revenue requests that while the Court may grant the petitioner's prayer for the present, the revenue should be given liberty 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:41274-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14287/2023 Miraj Retails Pvt. Ltd., Having Registered Address At Sant Krapa, Upali Odan, Nathdwara, Rajsamand, Rajasthan - 313301 Through Authorized Representative Mr. Manohar Paliwal, S/o Indra Paliwal, Chandpole Girwa, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001 Email Id- Manohar.paliwal@mirajgroup.in Mobile No.- 91- 8875016288 ----Petitioner Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ito Wd-1, Commerce House, Collectorate Road, Rajsamand, Rajasthan - 313326 Email Id- Rajsamand.ito1@incometax.gov.in ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Pranav Bhardwaj for Mr. Sanjay Nahar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.K. Bissa, Advocate. HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order 16/09/2025

1.

Mr. K.K. Bissa agrees with Mr. Pranay Bhardwaj that one of the grounds raised is certainly covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 31.03.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:50:05 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:29 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41274-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-14287/2023] Officer & Another2 and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)3, has held that such a notice will be bad and not valid.

3.

At the same time, Mr. K.K. Bissa states 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.

4.

Mr. Pranay Bhardwaj states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve his right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

5.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition disposed.

7.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

8.

In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 22-a.asopa/- 2 2025 SCC OnLine 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225(Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:50:05 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:29 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 →