SHRIVINAYAK SAMANVAY BUILDESTATES LLP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4316/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02020241202229 March 2022Bench: ANOOP KUMAR DHAND2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same court on January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). 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. Consequently, for the reasons stated in the aforementioned order, the impugned notice issued in the present case was also quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a precedent exists from a Division Bench of the same High Court on the same issue, subsequent benches are bound to follow it.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shrivinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP, 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. The petitioner's authorized partner, Satyapal Garhwal, represented the LLP. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law, and consequently, liable to be quashed? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had already been 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 of petitions) on January 27, 2022. Therefore, the present notice should also be quashed based on that precedent. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the 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. 4316/2022 Shrivinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP, having address at 82- 84, Green Colony, Moti Nagar Gaudhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur 302021, Rajasthan India through its Authorized Partner Satyapal Garhwal S/o Gopal Singh Garhwal, aged about 48 years, Resident of 82, Paradise Anand, Sirsi Road, Sirsi, Jaipur 302012, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jaipur having office at New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005, Rajasthan. 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110011 through its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Prateek Kedawat Advocate. For Respondents : 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 29/03/2022 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. (Uploaded on 30/03/2022 at 03:40:30 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:29 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4316/2022] 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 /6 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/03/2022 at 03:40:30 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:29 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 →