DURGA SOLANKI D/O LATE SHRI MANGILAL CHAUHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/5163/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02026075202231 March 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel had submitted that the issue involved 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. (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 ratio decidendi is that if a precedent exists where similar notices under Section 148 have been quashed as invalid, then subsequent identical notices should also be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Durga Solanki, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur, and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The petitioner argued that the issue was settled by a previous Division Bench decision of the same court. The court was presented with the procedural history of the case, which involved a challenge to the validity of the Section 148 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, considering the ratio laid down in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the issue was no longer res integra, as a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court had already decided in Sudesh Taneja (supra) that notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid and impermissible in law and had quashed them. Therefore, the impugned notice in the present case should also be quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue's side. However, by implication, the revenue would have sought to uphold the validity of the notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5163/2022 Durga Solanki D/o Late Shri Mangilal Chauhan, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of 6/401, G-2 Star Apartment, Chitrakoot Chauraha, Jaipur 302021 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), New Central Revenue Building Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur Rajasthan, 302005 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi - 110011 Through Its Chairman ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Advocate with Mr. N.S. Bhati, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order 31/03/2022 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 Mohita /93

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →