MIRAJ PIPES AND FITTINGS PVT. LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/15872/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41281-DB16 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, RAVI CHIRANIA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, acknowledging the agreement between the parties, decided that the notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This finding was based on the High Court's prior judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice. However, in light of the pending SLP in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, the Revenue was granted liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision altered the existing legal position. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Miraj Pipes And Fittings Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The challenge was based on the ground that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Udaipur. The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur was hearing the writ petition. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves the issuance of the Section 148 notice and the subsequent challenge by the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated 07.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and invalid? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice under Section 148 was issued by a JAO, not an FAO, making it invalid. They relied on 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 respondent agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by the Court's judgment. However, the Revenue stated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Apex Court against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., 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:41281-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15872/2023 Miraj Pipes And Fittings Pvt. Ltd., Having Registered Address At Badi-Thur Road, Opposite Gangotri, Fenyon Ka Guda, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001 Through Authorized Representative Kailash Chandra Agrawal S/o Satyanarayan Agarwal Aged About 43 Years R/o Daimond Colony, Bhuwana Udaipur Rajasthan Email Id Kailash Agarwal @ Miraj Group.in Mobile No. 8875012313 ----Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Aayakr Bhawan, Rajast, Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan 313001. Email Id Udaipur.dcit@incometax.gov.in ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : 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 07.04.2023 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 11:51:42 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:34 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41281-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15872/2023] 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 07.04.2023 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 24-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 11:51:42 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:28:34 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 →