SATYA NARAYAN MAHESHWARI S/O SHRI POORAN MAL MAHESHWARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/3974/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02019713202211 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, having been decided by a Division Bench of the same Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. In that precedent-setting decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Applying the ratio of the Sudesh Taneja case, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued to the petitioner was also invalid and impermissible. Therefore, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Satya Narayan Maheshwari, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondent is the Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2), Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel argued that the issue was already decided by a Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 2022. In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 were held to be invalid and impermissible in law 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? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) on January 27, 2022. The petitioner contended that based on this precedent, the notice issued in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue in this particular case. However, it is implied that the revenue would have defended the validity of the notice.

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.3974/2022 Satya Narayan Maheshwari S/o Shri Pooran Mal Maheshwari, Aged About 71 Years, R/o 331, Path No. 6, Murlipura Vijay Bari, Sikar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 302029 ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward 4(2), Jaipur, Ncr Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Kalavatiya, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 11/03/2022 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/4 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 16/03/2022 at 02:16:34 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:52 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 →