SAURABH BAGARIA S/O MAHESH KUMAR BAGARIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE

PDF · subscribers
CW/4630/2022HC Rajasthan29 March 2022Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved was no longer res integra, having 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 prior 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 impugned notice in the present case was also quashed and set aside. The ratio decidendi is that if a notice under Section 148 has been held to be invalid by a higher bench of the same court, subsequent similar notices should also be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Saurabh Bagaria, 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, Jhunjhunu. The petitioner argued that the issue was settled by a previous Division Bench decision of the same court. The respondent was the Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Jhunjhunu. The assessment year(s) are not specified. The procedural history involves a writ petition challenging the validity of a notice.

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 regarding the validity of notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, had been decided by a Division Bench of the 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 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 contentions made by the revenue in opposition to the petitioner's arguments.

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. 4630/2022 Saurabh Bagaria S/o Mahesh Kumar Bagaria, aged about 28 years, R/o C/o Bajrang Lal Bagaria, Bhola Ram Bagla Marg, Near Subhash Chowk, Churu - 331001 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Office, Ward 1, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Behind Collectorate, Mandawa, Road, Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, 333001 ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Mahendra Gargieya 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 29/03/2022 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 aforesaid cases, is also quashed and set aside and the petition is allowed. (SAMEER JAIN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ MANOJ NARWANI /10 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) (Uploaded on 30/03/2022 at 03:46:11 PM) (Downloaded on 30/10/2026 at 10:28:10 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 →