RARA ENTERPRISES vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4466/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021932202222 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. It held that the issue involved in the present case 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. on 27.01.2022. 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 consequently quashed. Following this precedent, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice issued to the petitioner. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, RARA Enterprises, through its partner Shri Rajesh Rara, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. 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 Central Board of Direct Taxes was also impleaded as a respondent. The petitioner contended that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same High 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, turning on the interpretation and application of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices under Section 148 had already been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) on 27.01.2022, where such notices were found 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.

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.4466/2022 RARA Enterprises, Having Its Address At B-40, Rajdhani Krishi Mandi, Sikar Road, Jaipur-302013 In The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Partner Shri Rajesh Rara. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Jaipur, Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur-302005 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 01:04:00 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:37 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4466/2022] 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/32 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 28/03/2022 at 01:04:00 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:37 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 →