KUMAWAT PAINTS AND HARDWARE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4457/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021663202222 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the same court 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). 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. Following this precedent, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued in the present case was also invalid and impermissible in law. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Kumawat Paints And Hardware, through its partner Shri Suraj Kumawat, 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 1(4), Jaipur. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and the Union of India. 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.

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 learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue involved in the present petition has been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in its 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 notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. Therefore, 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.

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.4457/2022 Kumawat Paints And Hardware, 71/11A, Madhyam Marg, Mansarover, Jaipur Through Partner Shri Suraj Kumawat S/o Shri Phool Chand Kumawat, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 42, Kumawat House, Ratnapuri, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Jaipur NCR Building, Bhagwan Das Road, 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. (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 01:03:09 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:49 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4457/2022] 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/31 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 01:03:09 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:49 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 →