CENTURY CERAMICS vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/17282/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41606-DB17 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 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged that the ground raised by the petitioner regarding the notice being issued by a JAO instead of an FAO was covered by its own previous judgments, specifically citing Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court noted the revenue's submission that an SLP was pending before the Supreme Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case. Consequently, the Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the aforementioned cases differed from the High Court's pronouncements. The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open. Any re-assessment order passed would also stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Century Ceramics, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 26.06.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents, represented by Mr. K.K. Bissa, conceded that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the High Court. The revenue also indicated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been filed in the Supreme Court concerning a similar issue in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd., and notice had been issued. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated 26.06.2025 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 notice issued under Section 148 is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The revenue agreed that the ground was covered by the High Court's judgment. However, they stated that an SLP had been filed in the Supreme Court in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, and notice had been issued. The revenue sought liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court's decision differed from the High Court's rulings.

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:41606-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17282/2025 Century Ceramics, A Partnership Firm, Having Its Principal Place Of Business At Udaipur, 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 Center, 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 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA

Order 17/09/2025

1.

Mr. Bissa, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Kothari that one of the grounds raised is certainly covered by a judgment of this Court.

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 26.06.2025 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 & (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:56:14 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:18 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41606-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-17282/2025] 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. 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. Kothari 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 26.06.2025 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 2-a.asopa/- 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCC OnLine 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225(Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 11:56:14 AM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:18 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 →