HIGH STREET FASHIONS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4339/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021351202222 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 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, as it had been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the same Court. The Court referred to its earlier 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 of petitions). In that judgment, the Court had found notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued in the present case. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court has already ruled on the validity of notices under Section 148 based on specific grounds, subsequent similar notices can be quashed based on that precedent without re-examining the merits. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, High Street Fashions Private Limited, through its Director, 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 Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1(3). The petitioner contended that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same High Court. This prior decision, rendered on January 27, 2022, in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., had declared notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. The present petition sought 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, turning on the interpretation of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue involved in the present petition was no longer res integra. They relied on the decision of a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court 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 of petitions), wherein notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. 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.4339/2022 High Street Fashions Private Limited, B-17, Bais Godam Industrial Estate, 22 Godam, Jaipur 302006, Through Its Director, Shri Raj Kumar Sethia Son Of Shree Chand Sethia, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of B-23, Ram Marg, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302019. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1(3), New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur, 302005 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Bhatti, Advocate for Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 22/03/2022 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 (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:26:40 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:42 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4339/2022] aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/12 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:26:40 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:42 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 →