Muralikrishna Pothuguntla vs. Income Tax Officer,

PDF · subscribers
WP/4835/2025HC TelanganaHBHC01009770202519 February 2025Author: SUJOY PAUL,RENUKA YARA6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it found no reason to take a different view from the previous round where the petitioner's writ petition was not entertained due to the availability of an in-house statutory remedy. The Court noted that in the first round, the petitioner was permitted to raise all objections before the authorities, but admittedly, the petitioner had not raised any such objections by filing a reply to the show cause notice or during the assessment proceedings. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghousel, which stated that the scope of interference on a show cause notice is limited and that jurisdictional issues can be adjudicated by the issuing authority, the Court found no grounds to interfere. The petitioner was granted liberty to assail the impugned assessment order before the appropriate authority. The Court expressly left undecided any substantive issues related to the assessment itself.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Muralikrishna Pothu, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad challenging a notice issued under Section 148 dated March 31, 2024, and an assessment order dated January 30, 2025, for Assessment Year 2020-21. This was the petitioner's second visit to the High Court; a previous writ petition (WP No. 2723 of 2025) against the Section 148 notice was disposed of on January 31, 2025, with liberty to raise all objections in pending assessment proceedings. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was bad in law and that jurisdictional objections could be raised for the first time in the writ court. The revenue contended that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent assessment order, when the petitioner failed to raise objections regarding jurisdiction during the assessment proceedings, despite being granted liberty to do so in a previous writ petition. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuance of the show cause notice was bad in law and cited Supreme Court decisions to support the contention that objections regarding jurisdiction can be raised for the first time before the Writ Court. Revenue's Contention: The revenue argued that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[ 3/t46 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original JEiisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION NO: 4835 OF 2025 Between: Muralikrishna Pothu Business, 1HNo1- guntla, S/o. Pothuguntla Venkatrao Ag 1 0.Thimmaraopet(V).Chennaraopet(M) ed. About 43 years, Occ , Warangal, Telangana ...PETITIONER AND 1. lncome Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Hyderabad Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite Lb Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004 Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax- 1, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance Rep by its Secretary, 166-8, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001 ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to l.lssue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly, one, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, setting aside and quashing the notice issued u/s 148 dated 31 .03.2024 and the Assessment Order'dated 30.01.2025 passegl,"against the Petitioner for the A.Y. 2020-21 as the same was issued without approval of the specified authority ll.Declare that the approval granted by the Specified Authority under Section 151 of the Act for the impugned notice as invalid and without legal effect. lll.set aside the Assessment order dated 30.0'1.2025 as the notice issued u/s 148 dated 31.03.2024 itself was bad in law. 2 3 ..',1] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Departmerrt not to take any further steps consequent to passing of the assessment order dated 30.O1.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl P.SOMA SngXAn REDDY counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 , lj?.?3H1",,i35il,t Tiiit Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY.SOL.GENERAL

The Court made the following: ORDER

i^: THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF'JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTIQ,E RENUI(A YARA WRIT PETITION No.48s5 ()F 2025 ORDER (per the Hon'bte the Acting Chief Justice): Heard Sri P.Soma Shekar Reddy' learned counsel for the petitioner; Ms. Bokaro Sapna Reddy, Junior Standing Counsel for Income Tax for respondent Nos'l and 2 arrd Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.3. 2. This is the second visit of the petitioner to this Court' Earlier, the petitioner filed W'P'No'2723 of 2025 against notice dated 31.03.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act' 1961 (for short, the Act)' The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 31.01.2025 by reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all relevant objections in the pending assessment proceedings'

3.

Now, the impugned assessment order dated 3O'01'2025 is called in question by contending that issuance of show cause notice itself is bad in law. In support of this submission, a number of decisions of the Supreme Court were cited' However' on a specific query from the Bench' learned counsel for the \ petitioner fairly submitted that neither in reply to the show causN i

2 notice nor duLring the assessment proceedings, the petitioner raised objer:tion regarding jurisdiction. On the rstrength of these judgments, it is submitted that the objection of jurisdict.ion can be taken before ttLe Writ Court for the f,rrst time.

4.

The other side submitted that the petitioner ha:; statutory remedy of a.ppt:al

5.

In the.firsr- round itself in W.P.No.2723 of 2O25, the petition was not entertained and the petitioner was pernritted to raise all objections l:efr>re the authorities. Admittedly, the petrtioner has not raised any such objections by fi1ing reply to the show cause notice or during assessment proceedings.

6.

The Ape.x Court in Special Director v" Mohd. Ghulam Ghousel opined that the scope of interference on show cause notice is limiteC. It was held as under: "5... Whether the show-cause notice was founde<l on ary legal premises, is a jurisdictional issue which can be even br: urged by the rec:.pient of the notice and such issues also r;an be adjudicatecl b], the authority issuing the very nctice i.ritially, before the zrg;grieved could approach the court..." 7 . Since th.e petitioner's previous petition itself was not gnter:tained because of availability of in-house statutory remedy, '1zooa1 : scc ++o

I we find no reason to take a different view in this round. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to assail the impugned assessment order before the appropriate authority. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaleous applications, if aly, shall stand closed. I SD/.N. SRIHARI AS ANT REGIS //// ECTION OFFICER

1.

The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 12(1), Hyderabad Aayakar Bhawan, Opposite Lb Stadium, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004

2.

The Principal Commissioner of lncome Tax- 1, lncome Tax Towers, Masab Tank, Hyderabad

3.

The Secietary, Union of lndia, I\4inistry of Finance, 166-8, North Block, New Delhi - 110 001

4.

One CC to SRI P.SOMA SHEKAR REDDY, Advocate. IOPUC]

5.

One CC to IME.BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, (Jr SC FOR INCOME TAX). IoPUCI 6 Two CD Copies. BSK BS To,

/t HIGH COURT DATED: 1 910212025 /i i,-" ---:-:-:-----,-: \ (l.::.)r,ir^. \ t\.r\ ( i '* i' ,, .,2. )/ ') c / i' \1, -" \. 1, \.r ru 3_< o \i_-:: O{ IiI,R zlffi ORDER WP.No.4835 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETTTION r / /.2 //s,z<-r

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →