SUNITA HYDROCOLLOIDS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/10801/2023HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:41960-DB19 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM, SANGEETA SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 10, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court agreed with the petitioner that the notice was bad in law as it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), citing its own judgments in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted liberty to the revenue to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the aforementioned High Court judgments in the pending SLP. The petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open. Any re-assessment order passed after the filing of the petition was also to stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sunita Hydrocolloids Private Limited, challenged a notice dated April 10, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents, the Assistant Commissioner and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court. The revenue also indicated that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against a relevant High Court judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated April 10, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is invalid and bad in law, as opposed to being issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The notice 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 issue was covered by existing High Court judgments. However, it stated that an SLP was filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court. The revenue sought liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the High Court 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:41960-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10801/2023 Sunita Hydrocolloids Private Limited, (Formerly Known As Ornare Health Life Private Limited) Having Registered Office At L.s. No.513/b At Manjusar Tehsil Salvi, Vadodara (Gujarat) - 391775 Through Director Purshottam Kumar Hissaria, Aged About 67 Years. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ACIT/DCIT Circle - 1, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342010 2. The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jodhpur-1, Aaykar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) - 342010 ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar Sr. Adv Through VC with Mr. Prateek Gattani For Respondents : Mr. K.K Bissa Mr. GS Chouhan HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 19/09/2025

1.

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

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 10th April 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 & Others1 following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:12:57 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:35 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41960-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-10801/2023] Officer & Another2 and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)33, 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. Jhanwar 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 10th April 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, any re-assessment order is passed after filing the present petition, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ 23-divyaP/- 2 2025 SCC OnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:12:57 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:29:35 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 →