SUPERFINE HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/3720/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02018003202210 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. Following its own Division Bench decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., the Court held that the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid and impermissible in law. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside. The ratio decidendi is that if a precedent from a higher bench of the same court has settled an issue, subsequent benches are bound to follow it. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition, providing relief to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Superfine Hotels Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, 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 informed the Court that a Division Bench of the same High Court, in a decision dated January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (and batch of petitions), had already held notices issued under Section 148 to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. The present petition was filed subsequent to this precedent.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court had already ruled on the invalidity of Section 148 notices in a recent decision. They relied on the judgment in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (revenue).

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.3720/2022 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(s) : Mr. Jagpravesh Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN 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 Karan/19 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 15/03/2022 at 10:44:28 AM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:03:15 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 →