RADHA GOVIND BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4570/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02022595202228 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 decided by a Division Bench of the same court in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on January 27, 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 quashed. Therefore, following the precedent set in the Sudesh Taneja case, the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case was also quashed and set aside. The petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a High Court Division Bench has already ruled on the validity of a particular type of notice under a specific section of the Income Tax Act, subsequent similar notices should be quashed based on that precedent. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Radha Govind Buildestate Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the issue was already decided by a Division Bench of the same court in a previous case, Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., decided on January 27, 2022. In that prior decision, notices issued under Section 148 were held to be invalid and quashed. The respondent was the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Jaipur.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue regarding the validity of notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was no longer res integra. They relied on the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan 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) dated 27.01.2022, where such notices were found to be invalid and quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue in this particular writ petition.

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. 4570/2022 Radha Govind Buildestate Private Limited, having its Registered office at E-24, Ganesham Tower, Vaishali Nagar, Amrapali Marg, Jaipur - 302015, Rajasthan through its Director Sh. Girraj Agarwal. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(3), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Javed Khan Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. N.S. Bhati Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anuroop Singhi Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 28/03/2022 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 (Uploaded on 29/03/2022 at 01:52:53 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:14 AM) (2 of 2) [CW-4570/2022] 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 MANOJ NARWANI /12 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 29/03/2022 at 01:52:53 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 09:45:14 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 →