TAVISHI FOODS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4404/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021972202222 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 the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). The Division Bench had previously ruled that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. Applying this precedent, the High Court found the impugned notice issued to the petitioner to be similarly invalid. Consequently, the impugned notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The operative direction was the quashing of the notice and the allowance of the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tavishi Foods India Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same 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). In that decision, notices issued under Section 148 were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. The revenue was represented by its counsel.

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? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has 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), where such notices were held to be invalid and quashed. Therefore, the present notice should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue's counsel in opposition to the petitioner's submission or the precedent cited.

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.4404/2022 Tavishi Foods India Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At E-74, Opp. Science Park Shastri Nagar Jaipur, 302016- Rajasthan, Through Its Authorised Signatory Mr Mukesh Khandelwal ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, Ward 4(2), Jaipur, Ncr Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Kalavatiya, 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 12:53:44 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:41 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4404/2022] aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/19 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:53:44 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:41 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 →