M/S NUTRIX INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/22319/2025HC Rajasthan2025:RJ-JD:48773-DB13 November 2025Bench: VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, BIPIN GUPTA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, in agreement with the parties, quashed and set aside 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. This decision was based on the principle that the controversy was squarely covered by the judgment in M/s. Jagtamba Timber Mart (supra). The court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice under Section 148 if the Apex Court were to interfere with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), or Shree Cement Limited (supra). The assessee undertook to withdraw an appeal already filed. The court kept open all rights and contentions of the parties. No other grounds were pressed by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Nutrix India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur. The petition 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 was the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jodhpur. The High Court noted that the controversy was squarely 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.

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 assessee, through its counsel, agreed that the controversy was covered by a prior judgment of a coordinate bench. The counsel for the assessee stated that other grounds raised in the petition were not being pressed and would be taken up at an appropriate stage if required. The assessee's counsel also undertook to withdraw an appeal already filed within two weeks. Revenue's Contention: The counsel for the Revenue submitted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) had been preferred against the judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), and notice had been issued. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if 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:48773-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22319/2025 M/s Nutrix India Private Limited, Through Its Director Om Parkash Soni S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Soni, Aged About 63 Years, Address E1-274 To 277, F-280 To 281, Agro Food Park,boranada, Jodhpur- 342003, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Jodhpur Having Its Address At Aayakar Bhawan, Paota C Road, Jodhpur. ----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), (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:09:54 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:33:57 AM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48773-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-22319/2025] 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. 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 105-nitin/- Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:09:54 PM) (Downloaded on 28/10/2026 at 12:33:57 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 →