SHARWAN CHOUDHARY S/O SH. MADAN GOPAL CHOUDHARY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/18427/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02104048202527 November 2025Author: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that while the proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) might have been questionable in light of previous judgments (Jasjit Singh and Sharda Devi Chhajer) concerning the faceless regime, it would be inappropriate for the High Court to pass orders that would render the already filed appeal redundant. Therefore, the court directed the petitioner to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The Appellate Authority is to consider these objections and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, taking into account the court's prior judgment on quashing proceedings based on a JAO's notice. The specific issue of the validity of the JAO's notice and the subsequent proceedings was not decided on merits by the High Court but was relegated to the Appellate Authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sharwan Choudhary, filed a Civil Writ Petition challenging a notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). The respondent is the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4, Jaipur. The judgment notes that a final order has already been passed after the notice was issued, and an appeal has been filed before the Appellate Authority. This procedural history is significant as it impacts the appropriate forum for addressing the petitioner's grievances. The court refers to a previous decision in a similar batch of cases.

What were the issues?

1. Whether proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were valid, considering the introduction of the faceless regime, and if the subsequent final order passed could be sustained, particularly when an appeal has already been preferred against it? (Question of law and fact, concerning the validity of assessment proceedings and the applicability of the faceless regime). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner implicitly challenges the validity of the notice issued by the JAO and the subsequent proceedings, as evidenced by the filing of the writ petition. The judgment refers to prior rulings in Jasjit Singh and Sharda Devi Chhajer, suggesting an argument regarding the impropriety of initiation by the JAO and the subsequent application of the faceless regime. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions. However, by filing an appeal against the final order, the revenue's position would likely be that the assessment proceedings and the final order are valid and should be upheld.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:48140-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18427/2025 Sharwan Choudhary S/o Sh. Madan Gopal Choudhary, Aged About 69 Years, Resident Of 82, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302008 ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4, Jaipur, Central Circle-4, Jaipur, Having Its Address At 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi-2, LIC Building Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prateek Kedawat, Mr Nikhil Simlote, Mr. Salim Khan Gori, Ms. Falak Mathur, Mr. Manish Bhodiwal & Mr. Utsav Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Ms. Tanushka Saxena & Ms. Chinki Choudhary HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 27/11/2025

Admittedly, the issue raised in the present petition is related to the issuance of notice by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer (herein after referred to as ‘JAO’), however, we note that after the Chief Commissioner & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition

[2025:RJ-JP:48140-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-18427/2025] No.15349/2024), we have considered the law as laid down by this Court as well as Punjab & Haryana High Court and thereafter held as under:

“4. Admittedly, in all these cases, the final order was passed after the notice was issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer. Although the faceless regime has been introduced. In view of the judgments passed in the cases of Jasjit Singh (supra) as well as Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra), the proceedings could not have been initiated by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer nor the faceless regime could have later on passed orders. However, it is noticed that the appeals have been preferred against the final order and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to pass orders resulting in making the appeal redundant.

In these circumstances, we direct the petitioners to file an application before the concerned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) who will take into consideration and pass appropriate orders accordingly within a period of 15 days following the judgment already rendered by this Court relating to quashing of the proceedings based on the notice issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer.”

Having taken the view as above, we allow the petitioner to take up the concerned objections before the Appellate Authority namely, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), who will take this into consideration and pass appropriate orders accordingly within

[2025:RJ-JP:48140-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-18427/2025] a period of fifteen days following the judgement already rendered by this Court relating to quashing of the proceedings based on the notice issued by the JAO.

The present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of.

All pending application also stands disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Amit/Riya/3

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →