SHREE CEMENT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/13147/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02068262202401 September 2025Author: K.R. SHRIRAM,MANEESH SHARMA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated April 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court followed its previous decisions, which held that notices issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) are invalid. The Court granted the petitioner's prayer for relief based on the prevailing law. However, acknowledging the pendency of an SLP before the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, the Court granted liberty to the Revenue to revive the notice issued under Section 148 if the Apex Court's decision interferes with the High Court's prior rulings in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, or Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions of the parties kept open. Any re-assessment order passed subsequently was also to stand quashed and set aside.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shree Cement Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated April 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), rendering it invalid. The petitioner initially indicated a willingness to amend the petition to include this ground. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax and others, acknowledged a group of approximately 150 similar matters and the High Court's prior view that such notices are invalid. The respondents did not insist on a formal amendment, agreeing to proceed based on the existing grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) is invalid, in light of the High Court's previous decisions 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)? Assessee's Contention: The notice dated April 26, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid because it was issued by a JAO and not an FAO. The petitioner relies on the High Court's decisions in Shree Cement Limited, Sharda Devi Chhajer, and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue acknowledged the Court's existing view that such notices are invalid. However, they noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) has been filed in the Apex Court concerning the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. judgment, and notice has been issued. The Revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court overturns the aforementioned judgments.

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:35231-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13147/2024 Shree Cement Limited, Having Its Office At Bangur Nagur, 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, Subcity Centre, Savina, Udaipur, Rajasthan - 313001 3. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi - Ii, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005 4. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, 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.

At the outset, Mr. Kasliwal states that the legal ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not

[2025:RJ-JP:35231-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-13147/2024] valid because it has been issued by Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Offider (FAO), has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet to be admitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out an application for adding grounds.

2.

Mr. Bapna states that since there is a group of almost 150 matters today on the same ground and this Court has taken a view that such a notice will be invalid, he will not insist on formal amendment in the petition.

3.

Ground referred to is that the notice dated 26th April 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.

4.

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 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:35231-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-13147/2024] be given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act.

5.

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.

6.

Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 26th April 2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed.

7.

Petition disposed.

8.

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

9.

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/178

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →