PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED NYALKAL vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned notices issued under Sections 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential orders. The Court found that the initiation of proceedings under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Act was in contravention of the amendments brought into the Income Tax Act pursuant to the Finance Act, 2020, and Finance Act, 2021, and that these proceedings should have been conducted in a faceless manner. The Court relied on its own previous decision in Kanakola Ravindra Reddy vs. Income-Tax Officer and numerous other High Court judgments that had taken a consistent stand on this issue. The Court noted that while the Supreme Court was seized of similar matters, no interim order had been granted. The Court clarified that the allowance of the writ petition was subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 3574 of 2024) filed by the Income Tax Department before the Supreme Court against the decision in Kanukala Ravindra Reddy. The parties were given liberty to move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petition in light of the Supreme Court's decision.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Nyalkal, filed a writ petition challenging the order of assessment passed by the National Faceless E-Assessment Centre under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The assessment determined the total income at Rs. 1,80,20,695/-. The petitioner also challenged the consequential demand notice. The primary ground for challenge was that the notices issued under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Act were issued in violation of the Finance Act, 2021, and the faceless assessment procedure, as mandated by amendments effective from April 1, 2021. The petitioner argued that these proceedings should have been conducted in a faceless manner.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment proceedings initiated for Assessment Year 2018-19, are illegal and without jurisdiction for not being conducted in a faceless manner as per the amendments brought by the Finance Act, 2021? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuance of notices under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Act, and the subsequent assessment proceedings, were conducted in violation of the Finance Act, 2021. They contended that these proceedings should have been conducted in a faceless manner, citing the decision in Kanakola Ravindra Reddy vs. Income-Tax Officer and other High Court judgments. The petitioner asserted that the assessment order was arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, and violative of principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue contended that the issue of notices under Section 148A and Section 148 of the Act was being challenged on the ground of violation of the Finance Act, 2021. They acknowledged that the Supreme Court was seized of the matter in Special Leave Petitions arising from similar High Court judgments, but stated there was no interim order granted by the Supreme Court.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 144,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 151A,Section 156,Section 142
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made, thr-. iollowing: ORDER
TTIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P'SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.31430 of2024 SBDEB' @er Ilon'ble Sri 'JusLice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kumar' leamed counsel for the petitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha, leamed Junior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Depadment for the respondents Perused the record
This is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which wele issued under Section 148,4. an<I 148 of the Income.]'ax Act, 1961 (for short.the Act,) orthe assessmcnt orders those have been passed under Section 147 of the Act which have been assailed'
This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of the grounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,{ of the Act and the subsequent lnitiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer' whereas in terms of the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w e'f', 01'04'2021 onwards' proceedings
2 unde . iicr:ior) 14gA of the Act as also under Seclion l4g of the Act oLl ,,11 'o irave also heen issued and f roct,cc[..] in a hcelcss mann 3r not bei15 tenns. 4. 'l'h: :ontention of the petitioner. is procee cl nrl: being in violation of the Finance Act impug.rcd ncticcs under Section l4gA and Secriou that tJt r issue of l0 ll i.e., the 14ll of the Act :rs tred in a faceless manner, have alrcaclt. t,ee.n dealt with K{NI,i:\NALA on 14.0,). )()23 rvhereby a batch of writ petitions ."vcnr allou,,gd snd thc proceedinrs initiated under Section l4gA as also tu.rcle . Section 148 of tl.Lc .t,:, were held to be bad with consequential rc.lje l.s on the ground of t h,:lnq in violation of the provisions of Sec ion l5lA of the Act r,rad ,ritlr Notification Lg/2l22dated 29.03.20.2. . .he said judgment p r:rr;rril b1, this Court has also bcen subsequcn:lv irllowed in a large nu l ler of rvr.it petitions which were allori.erl orr siurilar and dec cr:rl by, this Court in the case of '[(2023) l -5rj 1a <nrrr,n.co,1 178 (Telangana)l
3
Down the line, we find that the same issue has also been decided against the ltevenue by various High Courts i'e'' by the Bombay I{igh Court in the case of HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD., VS' ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER oFINCoMETAx&OTHERS?,GauhatiHighCourtinthecase of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs' UNION OF INDIA3' Punjab and respect of intemational taxation' Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAII vs' INCOME TAX OFFICER' INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on international Exation and central circle' High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs' INCOME TAX OFFICERT' Gujarat High Courl in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 'lzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom) 'i1toz$ 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l ^l(2024)165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Ilaryana)l 'i).oro|' ,0, taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)l :1,rozo t I66 taxrnann.com 679 (Bombay)l - \zoz+'t 165 taxmann com Ill (tlimachal Pradcsh)l )
4 the ciLs.r rl SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. IN(.(],ME TAX OFFI(:)IDFl ,& ANOTHER and batch of rvrir petiriorrsr0 which stood rjec,J:l on 19.03.2024. Similar views hai,e ralso ;een taken by thc I).,sion Bench of Calcutta I{igh Cor_rt ir rhe case of GIRI)IL\fii GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INI)t,\ & ORS (M.A.'f 1 6)( )t- )023),decided on 25.09.2024. DAHId\EIIAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME Tu\X OFFICER, WAI{IN :},:tX5)8, Jharkand High Court in rh-. case r,f.SHyAM
Ev.rn ttcugh the same issue having been decideci f v a large nurnber ol'l ljpli Courls, we are still confi.onted u,ith lu.gc filing of identical tn tr ()rs on daily basis ranging betwc.11 -. rg l0 writ petrtions. -l lrrrt upon the instructions being soLrgl t Ii onr the solitary lSround hat the Depaftntcr-r,. the_r, have been taking a decision o1'rhe Bornbay High Courr in the casr: o1 lleuowore Technolo;7i,::; Ltd., (2 supra) as also the decided by tjr i:r Clourt in the case of Kanakola Rrtvittdro Redcllt *202,1 SCt ( ) rr i r-. ( iui l0l2 '^2025 S( ( o rr i r.. .thar 287 ''[2023: R.t-Jl r:] qti4_DBl otre utic.lr .tr s been 5 ..1-: (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter' In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs atso fiied arising out ofthe same issue being decided by various [{igh Coutts' 7 T",_t g-Y-:1b:ing put to the learned counse-l f911h9r,!r3g..B'=*=. they have categorically accepted the fact that lhere is no interim ordel granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of these malters pending betbre it' Meanwhile' fresh writ petitions of identical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basis and the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwise lrasalreadybeendealtanddecidedbythisveryHighCourtitself.
On the one hand, even though th" o"let of this Court that was passed as early as on 14 09'2023 and more 1 6 months have lapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having been taken by the Income Tax Deparlment to take appropriate steps to either hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer' rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions
6 rnitiati.rg ;roceedings under Section 14gA of tlre l,ct and also initiatinl. oroceedings under Section l4E ol. rirc Act in conlrirve.tt;on to the amendrnents brought into the , ncoire .l_ax Act pursuirnt tc :hc Finance Act,2020 as also the Fi tanr e ,\ :t 202 I . 9' IJpc'tL a query being put as to why can't rhis rvrit petition be dispos,:c .: I ;n the teeth of the decision renderrd bv rhrs Couft in the casc ol (anokola Rovindra Retldy (l supra r. ]eiturc( I Standing Clounse I ii,.. I te Incorne Tax Department contends thrtt th,tse woulcl unnecetisill il.r burdsn the lncome Tax Dcpartrnent rvhere they u,ould br, .c,1uired to file equal number of SLIjs b::fbre the Hon'b le lirur:rre Court and it would be further by iLll tlc nrajor High Courls in India tnterest c 1- l-t: till the afe crnt r; ruously still t ut dr ling the exchequ:r ol11L- IJnion of India. It was also thc conler; Li ru of. the leamed litrtl"i rtq counsel that no prejudice would be ,:aris.rc1 to the !lrri:liz,rtron Fcritioners in case if this w rit petiriorr is r,r.1,r p,rrlding of the SLps pending befbre rhe i{on,ble Supreme Crirr. 316 the fact that the petitioner is alr.calr.er.joying the beneflt o1 ir:erirn protection. Nonetheless, on ttte c:rrJrcr.quen, of this Co_rr.r ts ro why the Income Tax Department have ltct colne out uith a rr,. rrnisnr to issue appropriatc instru..trarri r) .r) trkc
7 appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148A of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of the Act are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by the various High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed Standing Counsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level ofCBDT as any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot be Iirnited to any of these jurisdictional High Coutls'
As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase of titigation day in and day out even though various orders have been passed by this High Courl allowing writ petitions on the very same issue. The Income Iax authorities concemed are srill even now in 2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisions of Section 151A of the Act and as a result by now' more than 600 to 700 petitions have been already got pited up before this ltigh Cour.t on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakula Ruvindra Reddy (l supra). What is also surprising is.the fact that..though *njl"- W6Pi allowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), 'the Division Bench while reserving the dght of the Revenue' has also protected the interest of the petitioners .:. )
8 insolar :L: t1,re liberty which was granted i.o the Ilevenue lor initia-ir16 ir:sh proceedings strictly in accordauce rr itrr r.rre arnended pror.iriion; of the Act, as amended by the Finrnce .z\c.,2020 and the Fin: r_.co Act, 2021 . Thepetitioner assessee .,vou Lci ir,r snlillgd 16 challe rg e cr. r.aise the other legal objections if thc ll,:r,,__r ue initiates fresh ltrl,:eedings. The Department has macl: nc cn:ieavour in availirrc rlr,-.:ricl Iibeny rhat was reserved lor tht. Rcvcrrrrc. On the contrar!. 1hr:r. hs1,s been still sticking on to the sta td. r,hich th.is High Corrrr rr rvell as lnany other High Courls rrlreiLdr ,reld to be bad proceedi tg s lLs a one_time measure in a facel,:ss I l. It a rpcars that because of the aforesaid Iiberrv that rhis High Clourt hac 1:.trnted permitting the Revenue for initiati,tg tr.esh n-rirr: ner. the Income --ar I),rpartment wants to take advantage ot. Jtc : ame b1, proh.actirg tlr:;.: ltroceedings which would enabie thet.t_ to r.rcet thc Iimitation tlti r r.,,.6Llld otherwise come in the way. Like,u,is,:, il the writ petiti tr .:; kept pending for a considerable long period;rl.time and finail1 irt ,r laler stage if the Hon,ble Supreme ,llou r.r cr,nfir.rns the decisic'n t:l.t'n by this High court as also by rhe othe..High Courls in uhj:h the SLps are still pending, the lrr,:o r.r r 1_ar i I I I I
I Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwise protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of fresh proceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stage wl-rich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue and would be equalty disadvantageous and detrimental so lar as interest of the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income Tax Department gets an extended period of time for initiation of fresh proceedings.
The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Cour1, despite the clear precedent set in Kanukala Ravindro Reddy ll supra)' is a matter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistent initiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicial pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigation rvith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue' This deliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicial precedent but also strains the judiciat resources unnecessarily' The Department's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on pending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedings appears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumvent timitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal
posrtion. Suclr conduct raises serious quest or]s about the 10 j udicial pron()un jerrents, particularly when this Court ras irlreiLdy provided adminisrlt tive efficiency. and the respect fr_r1 a bal rnc:r approach by preserving both the Revenue,. r.ights and aSSeS:;Cii I I t,)reStS 13. .4ro lrer.aspect which needs to be consid,:red is tlrat in fact it shoul<l lra.',,: been realizecl by the Income Tax D:partme,t itself ancl shoulc rrr e lbund out via media in ensurinq that J,roccedings under S,r(.r ions l4g_A and l4g should not have bt.er ssued in a faceless 'ri, -,,rer! at reast till the Hon'ble Suprerne aourt decide the twelvc hrrcred (1200) odd SLps which it is alreacry serz.:cl oror, at least tlre t:otne Tax Deparlment should havr: lb,utcl out some remedial slcf,s to ensure that wherever the aulltor.ities intend to initiate pr c<:t:r:di,gs under Sections 14g_A and 1,1g. .thei tha, i, a faceless , il r'er, the proceedings should har e L,een defened without p.e c:rpitati,g the rnatter further intimatin.t thc ass,:ssec that they sirall iri,iare appropriate proceedings only afier;hr: liI_p,s are decided b,, 111,1 ]len,6le Suprerne Couft on the r erl sar.re issue. This again. .r.r: Income Tax Department, has not bt:en lrbie to eive a convincirre :r11,, except for the fact that such a decision if at all 1.7 has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and which otherwise has to be by way of a poticy decision and that too at the level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamed Standing Counsel fbr the Income Tax Department contended that the Delhi High Courl dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, on the one hand when the High Courl is struggling to reduce its pendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writ petition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this High Court resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which in the long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions but also consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing these matters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of the matter before the Flon'ble Supreme Court having been taken on many ocoasions, thc Hon'ble Supreme Coufi which is seized of the matter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thc Income Tax Deparlment. Yet, the authorities concemed at the State levcl are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majority ol High Coufts of diflerent States on the same issue; and to make things further worse, the Income Tax Department is showing audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 12 14ll thuruph thc jurisdictional Assessing Officer to havc hc.en only in the faceless manner.
In _he case of BANK OF INDIA vs ,r,hc'eas it ought ASSISTANT COMNTISS IONER, INCOME TAXI t, on an sslrc r,,,h ethcr it was 1 ax [)e| rr1 ,r cnt in not justifi at l,: ol the part of the Income follouirg an order passed by the adjudicating ar.rtho"itv i)nly on the grounrl Iat the appeals are pending, the Divisiol Ilerch of the High ('o-r:-. cf Bornbay held at paragraph lrlo.25 ,rs urrcler. viz.. : "2t; i\,4 r paridwalla ha de:is,i.rr c,f this court ,n "o't ''nnt'' drawn out attentior ro the God;rl,ar,idevi saraf,2 as mmissioner of rncome Ta.{ vs, smt. orcinrt€, Bench of this "oi."'to the recent decis on of thr: co- of vvhicr- rre of us (Justice f in samp Furniture (P) Lkl' v' 116r: the c or ri caresorica,y ;:":'ffi:"li:1"1;.:';:Ji.'I; "acce )t€ c , the judgment of fl the sarrr: ir; set aside ,n , ,,'" High court wourd nct mean that ti bincin; ron;e R"ru,,.,ns,o ;l;:j:::"":,^i-;l;::: :::.: l,' cou 1 rrr s -. ved,nr,,n" ";o;:";':ffi H:f T::: ":,,:; treat nr7 rier:isions being ,,not acceptable,, was criticize(j by the Supr:r.t( : ourt ln such d obsev;,ro,)s; made or,n".r;:;::"t;1"*''n are the reie\,ant t,'[t2o25l [70 r r rra,n.com l] ll::lt r r in'ss',i'lil}o'fr',,'",,0,r,1 ',', [20241 ] ,5-( tr r I nann.com . 'o yroo2j,,,,,,,,,. i"- ,:,;;L'l'r9fr"[8. or, (Bomi,ay) l.
13 "
Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Reddy. overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or otherwise of their conclusion or of any factual malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reaching in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before them, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other of the Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view' rightly criticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy lt cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities' The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Trlbunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the .jurisdiction of the Trrbunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the sub.iect matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy
14 rule rs not followed, the result will only be und( te I e rassment to assesses and chaos in adminrstretir n cf tax laws. 12 We have dealt with this aspect at some l:nq r, l:lause it has been suggested by ,\lCitional Solicitor General that the the le arne l obsgly31;. a - rrade by the High Court, have been harsh on th:) It is clear that the observations cf the Hig r seemingly vehement, and apparenfl,/ L r 6ralatable to the Revenue, are only intended tc curll : t,:ndency in revenue matters which, if allow,:d t(, :ecome widespread, could result in considerable .raritssntent to the assesses_public without any br;nefi ic: ihe Revenue. We would Iike to say tha. tr€ d:cartment should take these observations ir flre p trprer spirit. The observations of the Hlgh Oolrrt s,hoLrld be kept in mind in future and the utmost regard sirotrld be paid by the adjudicating authorities an(j the aJrpr:llate authorities to the requirements cf jLoicial di:;r;lpllns and the need for giving effect to the orJers or lhe higher appellate authorities which arer binJing or) them." 15 \\'hlr ir; \!orrying this Bench more is trrc jhcr trrat an endeavoLrl i: b,eing made whole heartedly to ensu.e not to generate further I itig rt ot.t on issues which have becn laid :o r( st b ), a large number tf Iiish Courts all of whom have taken a corsist,)rt stand that the aclion ,rf the Income Tax Department beinr vrolati,,.e of the officers (l I rr rt, I
15 Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l . Now, in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as also that ol the assessee, it would be trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with an observation /direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindru Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject to the outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income Tax Department and which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. i6. In the given lacts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely dispose of matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Coutt and which stands tbrtifled by the decisions of the various other High Courls on the very same issue, the pendency of this High Court would further be burdened which other-wise can be decided and disposed of as a covered matter. fl . So lar as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has already been considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs
36,'-\7 atrl38 of the order which, for ready refbrencc. is reproduced here rn dt r : 36 For all the aforesaid reasons, the imougred n,rtices 16 rsisued and the proceedings drawn : epartment is neither tenable ,)r?r se illegal, deserves to be and :rr;ide/quashed. As a consequence, by the respor dent_ nor sr sta ir able lrelng Ihe notices so issued and the procedure adofteo are all accorJingl,/ set the rnpu(lned rtself ,vas a lsc, Iets orders getting quashed, the consequential orde.s par;sed i,! the respondent-Department pursuant -o th: no..ices ir;t;ued under Section 142 and 14g wou d ;rlso get cLashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reasor we ar,> quashing the consequential order is on the ltrinctcles llrat when the initiation of the proceedings lr)cedurally wrong, the subsequent orders rr r lified automatically. 37 The preliminary objection raised by tht: pet trone:r is siustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on t''r s very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugnec noti tes :rc orders are getting quashed on the f,oint of uris;diction, we are not inclined to proceec fudrer .,ncl rjecide the other issues raised by the petitioner wh ch r;:z rrds reserved to be raised and contendec in an a r :'opriate proceedings. :l3 Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had in :lre ,32 sg cf r\ shish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ims measLrre e>.e rcising the powers under Article 142 r:f t re C r>rl;titution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to p -oc:ecd u,rcer the substituted provisions, and this CoJrt arlowir g tl- () setitions only on the Procedural flaw.- ths rig r11
a7 conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra.
We would only further like to make observations that since we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious of the fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case of I{anakula Rayindra.-Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challenge* before the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in SLP No.3574 of 2024, \ ( plelerred by the Income Tax Deparlment, we make it clear that allowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaifl SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Kanukala Ravindrs Reddy (1 supra). This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if they so want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of this writ petition in the light of the decision of the I{on'ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP on the very same issue
Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed in favour of the assessee so lar as the issue of jurisdiction IS concemed. As . a consequence, the impugned notice under challenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. I
" -to'cor ts stand cl lr:J. 18 //// Thc :c ns c iJuential orders, if any, also stancl ;et irsick,,/quashed in similtr t,rrtrs as have been passed by this High Coru.t irt the case of KnnAuttutt Ravindra Reddy (l supra). Thcr.c shall he no order as C ottr;t:quently, miscellaneous petitions pendir g. il an1., shall SD/-K.AMMAJI DEPU ry REGISTRAR I \ .I SE(::TION OFFICER To I The lncorns Tax Officer Ward 1, Sangareddy lrrcon.e Tax Office, Veerabhro.;r lJaoar. New Bus stand, vedraoniira r.rogai, singareodj; Telangarra The Princ perl_ Ctrief Commissioner of lncome Tax-Telanr;ana and A.p, Hyderab,ld, l-T Towers, AC Guards, lVlasab Tank, fiVO"tfaOrO_-SOOb)'A, Telangarra The Cen'.ra,i Ei,r;rrd of Direct Taxes, Represented by irs Chairnran, Department of Reveru,:. Nrinistry of Finance, covernmeniot-tirJL. s,ecii ta;irliir]rdi'is!, New Dellri . 11(r OOi. The Naticr al Faceless Assessment Center, lncomr-. Tax D,,:partment, New Delhi. The Sec'etary :o the Government,. Union of lndia. I)epirrtme.rnt of Revenue, N/inistry ('f :irr.ltce, New Delhi - .l 1O 001 One CC ro {ic L THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR, ,\dvc,care, IOpUct one CC ro tVtr; J SUNITHA (JUNtoR SC FoR iNCbME .li) iopir6i Two CD (lc piss B M /BSh. 2 3 4 5 o 7 B /W"
HIGH COUR:'t DATED:01 lAt!i12025 ORDER WP.No.31430 of 2024 _ r:,=- i{. o ? 7 ',lll'i 20m d'( \'..) \ .+. '\--i\. )l: .,, re ",( ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \1 -1,i )i l\ L1 I -/.: | .i-; : .::-_ .
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- V3 Enterprises PVT LTD vs. The State Of ApAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Zenith Metaplast(P) Limited vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Susmita Das vs. The Principal Commissioner CGST And Central Excise , Bhubaneswar Commissionerate,KhurdaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Saroj Kumar Mahanandia vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
