BRIJRAJ SINGH RATHORE S/O SH. HARDAYAL SINGH RATHORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4173/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02020504202224 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the present petition 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. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch) on January 27, 2022. In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case for the same reasons. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue regarding the validity of Section 148 notices has been decided by a coordinate bench, subsequent petitions raising the same issue should be decided in line with the precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Brijraj Singh Rathore, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sikar. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, referencing a previous Division Bench decision dated January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that case, notices issued under Section 148 were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned notice under Section 148 is invalid and impermissible in law. This contention was based on the submission that a Division Bench of the same 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), had already decided this issue on January 27, 2022, finding such notices to be invalid and quashing them. The petitioner relied on this precedent. 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. 4173/2022 Brijraj Singh Rathore S/o. Sh. Hardayal Singh Rathore aged about 33 years, R/o. 1/12, Housing Board, Devipura, Sikar, Behind Bus Depo, Sikar-332001, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Sikar Todi Nagar, Sanwali Road, Sikar- 332001, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Javed Khan Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. N.S. Bhati Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anuroop Singhi Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 24/03/2022 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 /25 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 05:19:54 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:26 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 →