SHREE CEMENT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/14205/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02074664202401 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated May 3, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court's decision was based on its previous judgments in Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), which held that such notices issued by a JAO instead of an FAO are invalid. The Court granted the revenue liberty to revive the notice if the Supreme Court were to overturn these precedents in the pending SLP. The petitioner reserved its right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. Consequently, any re-assessment order passed would also stand 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 Cement Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated May 3, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents are various income tax authorities. The High Court had previously ruled on similar issues in other cases. The revenue acknowledged that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by existing High Court judgments. The revenue also mentioned that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed against one of these judgments, Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice dated May 3, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is bad in law and invalid? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO, relying on the High Court's judgments in Shree Cement Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others, Sharda Devi Chhajer vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2). Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue agreed that one of the grounds raised by the petitioner was covered by a judgment of the High Court. - The revenue stated that an SLP had been filed against the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice had been issued by the Supreme Court. - The revenue requested liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Supreme Court were to interfere 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:35216-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14205/2024 Shree Cement Limited, Having Its Office At Bangur Nagar, Andheri Deori, Masuda Road, Beawar, Ajmer - 305901, Rajasthan Through Its Joint President Shri Arvind Khicha, S/o Shri Indermal Khicha, Aged About 60 Years R/o 5-6, Nanesh Nagar, Near Jawahar Bhawan, Vinod Nagar, Beawar, Rajasthan - 305901 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Cr Building, Opp. Sessions Court, Jaipur Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan - 305001 2. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Aaykar Bhawan, Sub-City Centre, Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001 3. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi -, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005 4. Union Of India, Through The Sceretary, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anant Kasliwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shashank Kasliwal & Ms. Divisha Misra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Sarvesh Jain, Mr. Meyhul Mittal & Mr. Rahul Kumar HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order 01/09/2025

1.

Mr. Bapna, who appears on advance copy, agrees with Mr. Kasliwal that one of the grounds raised certainly is covered by a judgment of this Court.

[2025:RJ-JP:35216-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-14205/2024]

2.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 03rd May 2024 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Offider (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. 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. Kasliwal 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 03rd May 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

6.

Petition 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:35216-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-14205/2024]

7.

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

8.

In case, if any re-assessment order is passed, the same will also stand quashed and set aside. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/179

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →