SILVER STAR COMMODITY vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/4386/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021591202222 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 in its 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). The ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja judgment was that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were accordingly quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. The petition was allowed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Silver Star Commodity, through its partner Shiv Ratan Kandoi, 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-1, Jaipur. The petitioner's counsel stated that the issue was no longer res integra, referring to a previous Division Bench decision of the same court dated 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). In that decision, 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? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has 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). The petitioner contended that based on this precedent, the notice issued in their case is also invalid and should be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue did not successfully counter the petitioner's reliance on the Sudesh Taneja judgment.

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.4386/2022 Silver Star Commodity, Having Its Registered Office At 514-516, 5Th Floor, Sun N Moon Chambers, Near Ajmer Pulia, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302001 Through Its Partner Shiv Ratan Kandoi. ----Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur NCR Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Vijay, 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 12:28:38 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:47 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4386/2022] aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/14 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:28:38 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:47 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 →