SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/3650/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02017963202210 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,ANOOP KUMAR DHAND1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court, following its earlier decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) dated January 27, 2022, held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law. The Court found that the issue was no longer res integra. Consequently, the impugned notice issued to the petitioner, Superfine Hotels Private Limited, was quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed based on the precedent established in the Sudesh Taneja case. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been held to be invalid by a coordinate bench, similar notices should also be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Superfine Hotels Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was already decided by a Division Bench of the same court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022, where similar notices under Section 148 were held to be invalid and were quashed. The present petition was filed seeking similar relief.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law, considering the precedent set in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions)? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the High Court had already quashed notices issued under Section 148 in a batch of petitions, including Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in this particular writ petition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3650/2022 Superfine Hotels Private Limited, having address at D-29, Ashiyana Apartment, Shanti Path, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302004 through its Authorized Signatory Saumitra Singh. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur having its Address at New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Jagpravesh Singh Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment / Order 10/03/2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset would submit that the issue involved in this petition is no longer res integra as it has been put to an end by Division Bench of this Court in the decision rendered on 27.01.2022 in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) where the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been found to be invalid and impermissible in law and quashed. In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned notice issued in the present case, for the reasons stated in the order dated 27.01.2022 passed in the aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ MANOJ NARWANI /15 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 15/03/2022 at 04:26:59 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:03:11 AM)

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →