HIGHLAND DISTILLERS AND BOTTLERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(5), CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18429/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01102055202507 July 2025Author: MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL,MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the impugned notice dated August 29, 2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was liable to be quashed. This decision was based on the law laid down in the two co-ordinate bench judgments of the same court, Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others. The reasoning was that the notice was not issued in accordance with the mandate of the notification dated March 29, 2022, which prescribed issuance through a faceless assessment system. The court quashed the notice with liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. No other issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Highland Distillers and Bottlers Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated August 29, 2024. The petitioner contended that this notice was invalid because it was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas the authority to issue such notices, in terms of a notification dated March 29, 2022, should have been exercised only through a faceless assessment system. The petitioner relied on two previous judgments of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in support of their argument. The respondents, represented by the Income Tax Department, did not dispute the facts and conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the aforementioned judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is valid when the relevant notification mandates issuance through a faceless assessment system? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice dated August 29, 2024, issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, was invalid. They relied on the notification dated March 29, 2022, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which stipulated that such notices should be issued only through a faceless assessment mechanism. The petitioner cited two High Court judgments: Jatinder Singh Bhangu Vs. Union of India and others (decided on July 19, 2024) and Jasjit Singh Vs. Union of India and others (decided on July 29, 2024). Revenue's Contention: The respondents conceded that the petitioner's case was covered by the two judgments cited by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18429-

IN THE Highland Disti Income Tax O

CORAM : H

H

Present : M fo

M

M M

fo

DEEPAK SIB

C dated 29.08.20 under Section challenge rais issued by the done because i issued by the notice could ha

2.

In petitioner plac i. CWP India -2025 (O&M)

Sr. No.138

E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH

CWP-1842 Date of De

illers and Bottlers Private Limite Versus fficer, Ward 5(5), Chandigarh an

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. Mukul Panpher, Advocate or the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Stand Mr. Vaibhav Gupta and Mr. Vidul Kapoor, Jr. Standing C or the Income Tax Department-re *** BAL, J. (Oral)

Challenge made through the ins 024 (Annexure P-2) issued to the 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1 ed by the petitioner is that th Juri ictional Assessing Office in terms of the notification dated Ministry of Finance, Governm ave been issued only by way of f n support of his afore submiss es reliance on the following two P-15745-2024, titled Jatinder S a and others, decided on 19.07.2 B AND HARYANA AT H 29-2025 (O&M) ecision : 07.07.2025

ed …Petitioner

nd others

…Respondents AK SIBAL A BANERJI ding Counsel and ounsels espondents. stant petition is to the notice e petitioner by the respondents 1961. The primary ground of e impugned notice has been er which could have not been d 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-9), ment of India, the impugned faceless assessment. sion, learned counsel for the o judgments of this Court:- 2024; and VANDANA 2025.07.09 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18429-

ii. CWP other

3.

L that the case o through the af Benches of thi

4.

In Jatinder Sing dated 29.08.20 Officer, is here the petitioner i

5.

T

July 07, 2025 vandana

Whether speak Whether repor -2025 (O&M)

P-21509-2023, titled Jasjit Sin rs, decided on 29.07.2024. earned counsel for the responde of the petitioner is covered in his foresaid two judgments rendered is Court in Jatinder Singh Bhan n the light of the above, in ter gh Bhangu and Jasjit Singh ( 024 (Annexure P-2), issued by eby quashed with liberty to the r in accordance with law. he petition is allowed in the abov

(DEEPA

J (LAPIT

J

5

king/reasoned :

Yes/No rtable :

Yes/No gh Vs. Union of India and ents does not dispute the fact s favour by the law laid down d by two different co-ordinate ngu and Jasjit Singh (supra). rms of the law laid down in (supra), the impugned notice y the Juri ictional Assessing respondents to proceed against ve terms. AK SIBAL) JUDGE

TA BANERJI) JUDGE VANDANA 2025.07.09 09:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →