KAUSHALYA DEVI CHAYAL vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/22313/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:48765-DB13 November 2025Bench: VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, BIPIN GUPTA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in agreement with the parties, disposed of the present Writ Petition in terms of the order passed in M/s Jagtamba Timber Mart (supra). In that prior judgment, the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Act, and the assessment order dated March 21, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings, were quashed and set aside. This was done with liberty granted to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act if the Supreme Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The petitioner undertook to withdraw the appeal already filed within two weeks. The court accepted the undertaking and disposed of the petition, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kaushalya Devi Chayal, challenged a notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an assessment order dated March 21, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings. The respondent is the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Bikaner. The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur noted that the controversy was covered by a previous judgment of a coordinate bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22164/2025 (M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax), decided on November 12, 2025. In that prior case, the notice and assessment order were quashed and set aside with liberty to the revenue to revive them if the Supreme Court interfered with certain judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated March 24, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the assessment order dated March 21, 2025, passed under Section 147 of the Act, along with consequential proceedings, are liable to be quashed and set aside. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner's counsel agreed that the controversy was squarely covered by a prior judgment of a coordinate bench. The petitioner stated that other grounds raised were not being pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage if required. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel submitted that a Special Leave Petition had been preferred by the Revenue against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), and notice had been issued. The counsel requested liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in case the Apex Court interfered with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2025:RJ-JD:48765-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22313/2025 Kaushalya Devi Chayal W/o Shri Sukhdev Chayal, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Near Ratan Sagar Well, B Sethia Gali, Bikaner, Rajasthan -334001 ----Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Bikaner Having Its Address At Room No72, Ground Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Rani Bazar, Bikaner, Rajasthan, 334001 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Arora Mr. Dinesh Bothra Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. KK Bissa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 13/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22164/2025 (M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) decided on 12.11.2025 in the following terms:- “12. In these circumstances, notice dated 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 21th March 2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act along with consequential proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside. 13. At this stage, Mr. Bissa submits that in judgment of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition and (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:08:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:33:39 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48765-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-22313/2025] 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. 14. In view of the above, counsel for the petitioner states that other grounds raised are not being pressed upon and they will be taken at appropriate stage, if required. 15. Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 24th March 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act and assessment order dated 21th March 2025 passed under Section 147 of the Act along with consequential proceedings, with liberty as prayed. 16. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to apply within two weeks to withdraw the appeal already filed. 17. Undertaking accepted. 18. Petition disposed. 19. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.” 2. In view of the submissions made before this Court, the present Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms of the order passed in M/s Jagtamba Timber Mart (supra). (BIPIN GUPTA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 99-nitin/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:08:08 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:33:39 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 →