VISHNU PRAKASH GOYAL, S/O SRI RAM GOPAL SARRAF vs. UNION OF INDIA

PDF · subscribers
CW/17178/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02094285202409 September 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). This decision was based on the precedent set by this Court in Shree Cement Limited, which relied on Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Consequently, the assessment order dated February 22, 2024, which was consequential to the invalid notice, was also quashed and set aside. The court granted 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 petitioner reserved the right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. The petition was disposed of with the liberty as prayed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vishnu Prakash Goyal, challenged a notice dated March 26, 2023, 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), rendering it invalid. The respondents, Union of India and Assistant/Deputy Commissioners of Income Tax, did not dispute this point. The court was informed that an assessment order dated February 22, 2024, had been passed subsequent to the filing of the petition. The petitioner also stated an intention to withdraw the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated March 26, 2023, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid if issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The notice is bad and not valid as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by this Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through its counsel, agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner is covered by a judgment of this Court. While acknowledging that a Special Leave Petition has been filed in the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case and notice has been issued, the revenue requested liberty to revive the notice if the Apex Court interferes with the aforementioned judgments. The revenue did not contest the invalidity of the notice on the stated ground.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JP:36410-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17178/2024 Vishnu Prakash Goyal, S/o Sri Ram Gopal Sarraf, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Brij Villa, D-70, Residency Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle- 2, Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Acit Central Circle- 2, Room No. 410, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate with Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate. For Respondents No.1 For Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : : Mr. Devesh Yadav Advocate with Mr. Yatharth Asopa Advocate & Mr. Chinmay Surolia Advocate for Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG Mr. Siddharth Bapna Advocate with Mr. Sarvesh Jain Advocate & Mr. Meyhul Mittal Advocate HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 09/09/2025 1. Mr. Siddharth Bapna, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Rajat Sharma that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court. 2. Ground referred to is that the notice dated 26th March 2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued

[2025:RJ-JP:36410-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-17178/2024] 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 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. Siddharth Bapna 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. Rajat Sharma 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 26th March 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. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

[2025:RJ-JP:36410-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-17178/2024] 8. We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 22nd February 2024 has already been passed. Since we have held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order cannot be sustained. The same is also quashed and set aside. 9. Mr. Rajat Sharma’s statement that application to withdraw the appeal will be filed within two weeks, is accepted. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/79

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →