SHREE CEMENT LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/12721/2025HC RajasthanRJHC02071615202526 August 2025Bench: K.R. SHRIRAM,ANAND SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the notice dated 29.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that the notice was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, and that this issue was extensively dealt with in the cited cases. The Court granted the liberty sought by the revenue to revive the notice if the Apex Court's decision in the pending SLP in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra) or other related cases were to interfere with the current judgment. The Court also clarified that the petitioner did not press other grounds raised in the petition. The petition was disposed of with the aforementioned liberty granted to the revenue.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shree Cement Limited, challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was that the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and others, acknowledged that the notice was indeed issued by the JAO. The revenue also noted that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed by the revenue in a similar case, Hexaware Technologies Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, and notice had been issued. The revenue requested liberty to revive the Section 148 notice if the Apex Court's decision in the aforementioned cases differed from the current judgment.

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 valid? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO and not the FAO, which is a primary ground for challenge. The assessee relies on the judgments in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another, and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others. Revenue's contentions: The revenue acknowledged that the notice was issued by the JAO. They submitted that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), the revenue has preferred an SLP and notice has been issued. 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

[2025:RJ-JP:33810-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12721/2025 Shree Cement Limited, Having Its Registered 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. Principle Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi - Ii, Lic Building, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005 4. Director General Of Income Tax (Investigation), New Central Revenue Building, B. D. Road, Statue Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj D. Sheth For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Meyhul Mittal & Mr. Sarvesh Jain HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 26/08/2025 1. Counsel for petitioner states that one of the primary grounds raised is that notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). 2. Indisputably, the notice to petitioner has been issued by the JAO and not FAO.

[2025:RJ-JP:33810-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-12721/2025] 3. Counsel for petitioner is correct in submitting that this issue has been extensively dealt with in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2)1, Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another2 and Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others3. 4. Mr. Siddharth Bapna submitted 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. 5. Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 29.05.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty as prayed. 6. In view of above, we also clarify that petitioner did not press other grounds. 7. Petition disposed. 8. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/16 1 [2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay) 2 2025 SCCOnLine Raj 3386 3 DB Civil Writ Petition No.10540/2024, dated 05.08.2025 at Jaipur Bench (unreported)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →