SHEETAL JUNIWAL D/O SHRI RAMESH PEMRAJ MUTHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4412/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021644202222 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 petition was no longer res integra, having 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). 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. Applying this precedent, the High Court found the impugned notice in the present case to be similarly invalid. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a precedent from a coordinate bench has settled a legal issue, subsequent cases with identical issues should follow that precedent. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sheetal Juniwal, 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. 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. 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, as invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. The present petition was filed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Jaipur, and the Union of India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue concerning the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been conclusively 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 argued that based on this precedent, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in opposition to the petitioner's submission or the precedent relied upon.

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.4412/2022 Sheetal Juniwal D/o Shri Ramesh Pemraj Mutha, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 4 Kha 18, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(4), Jaipur, NCR Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur. 2. Union Of India, Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi 110002 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ishita Rawat, Advocate for Mr. Gunjan Pathak, 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 (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:55:26 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:50 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4412/2022] 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/21 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 12:55:26 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:02:50 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 →