FRUITFUL ENTERPRISES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
CW/15412/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02083599202216 July 2026Bench: SUDESH BANSAL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the order dated 21.08.2025 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14638/2022. This order directed that cases falling below the value of Rs.50,00,000/- would have to be dropped, keeping in view the stand taken by the Revenue before the Apex Court as observed in paragraph No.53 of the Rajeev Bansal judgment. The Court further stipulated that the concerned competent officer of the Department should conduct this exercise expeditiously, preferably within two months, and convey the decision to the assessee in terms of the faceless regime, adhering to Section 144-B of the Act. The contentions raised before the Bench were rejected in light of this consensus and the cited Supreme Court judgments. No specific finding was recorded on the merits of the petitioner's case, as the disposal was based on the agreed terms and prior judicial pronouncements.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Fruitful Enterprises (India) Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. The petition sought to quash an order dated 27.07.2022, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(1), Jaipur, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order pertained to Assessment Year 2013-14. Both the petitioner and the respondents jointly submitted that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of a previous order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14638/2022, which dealt with a similar controversy.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2013-14, is liable to be quashed and set aside. The petitioner contended that the writ petition should be disposed of in terms of a prior order of the Co-ordinate Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14638/2022. This prior order, it was submitted, provided a framework for dealing with similar controversies. The revenue, by agreeing to dispose of the matter in terms of the said order, implicitly accepted its applicability. The prior order referenced observations from the Apex Court in Rajeev Bansal's case, specifically concerning cases below Rs.50,00,000/- being dropped, and also cited judgments in Vikram Kapahi, Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya, and Pradeep Himatlal Shah.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A,Section 144-B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2026:RJ-JP:27043-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15412/2022 URN: CW / 30827U / 2022 Fruitful Enterprises (India) Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At- 108, Mahavir Nagar Shopping Arcade, N.H. No. 8, Mahavir Nagar, Vapi, Gujarat, Through Its Director Sh. Sharad Agarwal. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 7(1), Jaipur, Sidhnath Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajas, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302015. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. Ms. Jaya Pathak, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 16/07/2026 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing and setting aside of the order dated 27.07.2022 (Annexure-1), passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At the very outset, both the learned counsels jointly submit that the instant writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 21.08.2025 passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14638/2022 by

[2026:RJ-JP:27043-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-15412/2022] the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, wherein a similar controversy was involved. 3. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- "6. While examining the cases, the example as mentioned by the Apex Court in its judgment in Rajeev Bansal's case (supra) in paragraph No.112 and the observations made in paragraph Nos.110 and 111 shall also be taken into consideration. Cases which fall below the value of Rs.50,00,000/- would have to be dropped, keeping in view the stand taken by the Revenue before the Apex Court, as observed in paragraph No.53. 7. The aforesaid exercise shall be conducted by the concerned competent Officer of the Department expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months, without any further delay. The decision shall be conveyed to the assessee in terms of the faceless regime by the concerned Officer, keeping in view the provisions of Section 144-B of the Act. 8. In view of the above, the contentions raised before us are rejected. Further, it has also been brought to our notice that, in the recent judgments passed in the cases of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vikram Kapahi, reported in [2025] 170 taxmann.com 593 (SC), decided on 06.01.2025, Income Tax Officer Vs. Ashish Acharatlal Varaiya, reported in [2024] 168 taxmann.com 588 (SC), and Income Tax Officer Vs. Pradeep Himatlal Shah, reported in [2025] 170 taxmann.com 472 (SC), decided on 20.12.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also disposed of the Special Leave Petitions in terms of the judgment passed in Rajeev Bansal (supra), with the observation that the Assessing Officer shall dispose of the petitions in accordance with the law laid down therein." 4. In view of the aforesaid consensus between the learned counsels, the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as above. 5. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (ARUN MONGA),J 125-/Ashwani

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →