RARA UDHYOG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4398/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021937202222 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the issue involved was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same 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. In that judgment, 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 held that the impugned notice issued in the present case, for the same reasons stated in the Sudesh Taneja judgment, was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been held to be invalid and impermissible by a coordinate bench on specific grounds, subsequent similar notices should also be quashed on the same basis, without requiring a fresh adjudication of the merits of the notice itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rara Udhyog, through its partner Shri Rakesh Rara, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur. The Central Board of Direct Taxes was also impleaded as a respondent. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous Division Bench decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. dated January 27, 2022, which 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 court was informed that the present case involved similar grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to the petitioner is invalid and impermissible in law, in light of the Division Bench judgment in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue involved in the present petition is no longer res integra. They relied on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the same High Court on 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). This judgment, according to the petitioner, had found notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to be invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. Therefore, the petitioner contended that the impugned notice in their case should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the respondents (Income Tax Officer and Central Board of Direct Taxes).

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.4398/2022 Rara Udhyog, Having Its Address At E-144, RIICO Industrial Area Phase-Ii, Bagru Ext. Bagru Jaipur 303007, Rajasthan Through Its Partner Shri Rakesh Rara Son Of Shri Mahaveer Kumar Rara. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur Having Its Address At Sidhnath Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar Scheme, Behind New Vidhansabha, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302015. 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi-110011 Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Apeksha Bapna, Advocate for Mr. Siddharth Ranka, 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. (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:52:56 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:33 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4398/2022] 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 Karan/18 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:52:56 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:33 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 →