HINDUSTAN TRADECOM PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
CW/4229/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02021103202216 March 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the petition. Following its own prior decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions), the Court held that the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid and impermissible in law. The reasoning was based on the precedent established in the Sudesh Taneja case, which had already addressed and quashed similar notices. Consequently, the impugned notice in the present case was quashed and set aside. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the petition. No issues were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Hindustan Tradecom Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that a Division Bench of the same High Court had previously ruled on a similar issue. In a decision dated January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr., notices issued under Section 148 were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. The present petition was filed against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur, and the Union of India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law, based on the precedent set by the Division Bench 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 argued that the issue was no longer res integra, as it had been decided by a Division Bench of the High Court in the aforementioned Sudesh Taneja case, where notices under Section 148 were quashed. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions 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

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4229/2022 Hindustan Tradecom Private Limited, 402, Royal World, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur Through Director Vikram Singh Kanoongo S/o Late Shri Ghanshyam Das Kanoongo, Aged About 38 Years, R/o C-15, Surajpole Mandi, Jaipur 302001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Jeevan Nidhi 2, Lic Building, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 2. Union Of India Through Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance (Department Of Revenue), Central Board Of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi-110002. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Ishita Rawat Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gunjan Pathak Advocate. HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order 16/03/2022 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.

(2 of 2) [CW-4229/2022]

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 Sanjay Kumawat-50

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →