SHREE FATS AND PROTIENS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/5123/2023HC RajasthanRJHC02023000202309 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court reasoned that this notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which has been held to be bad and invalid by this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited, following Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Court granted the liberty sought by the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court were to interfere with the aforementioned judgments. Furthermore, since the Section 148 notice was held to be invalid, the consequential assessment order dated May 28, 2023, could not be sustained and was also quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the parties.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shree Fats And Protiens Private Limited, challenged a notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 7, Jaipur. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondent revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a High Court judgment. The revenue also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. The revenue sought liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court interfered with the aforementioned judgments. An assessment order dated May 28, 2023, was passed after the petition was filed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated July 27, 2022, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is valid, or if it should have been issued by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO)? Assessee's contentions: The notice under Section 148 is bad and not valid as it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. This contention is supported by the High Court's judgment in Shree Cement Limited, which followed Sharda Devi Chhajer and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's contentions: The revenue agreed that one ground was covered by a High Court judgment. However, it stated that an SLP was filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued. In view of the law as it stands today, the revenue requested liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court interferes with the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd., Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Shree Cement Limited.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2025:RJ-JP:36369-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5123/2023 Shree Fats And Protiens Private Limited, Having Office At Mangarh, Khokhawala, Bassi - 303301, Rajasthan Through Authorized Representative Mr. Rajkumar Agarwal S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 73 Years R/o D-38, Jyoti Marg, Bapu Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302015 ----Petitioner Versus Office Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle - 7, Sidhnath Bhawan, Rajas, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, Lal Kothi Scheme, Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302015 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajat Sharma Advocate with Mr. Saksham Pandey Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak Advocate with Mr. Palash Gupta Advocate. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 09/09/2025

1.

Mr. Sandeep Pathak, 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 27th July 2022 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Juri ictional 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. 1 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386

[2025:RJ-JP:36369-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-5123/2023] 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. Sandeep Pathak 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 its 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 27th July 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition disposed.

7.

Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

8.

We are informed that after the petition was filed, an assessment order dated 28th May 2023 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. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/49 3 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →