SHRIVINAYAK SAMANVAY BUILDESTATES LLP vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4209/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02020249202215 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 the submission by the petitioner's counsel that the issue was no longer res integra, citing the Division Bench's decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. on 27.01.2022. In that earlier case, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were held 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. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The ratio decidendi is that if a similar issue regarding the validity of Section 148 notices has been decided by a higher bench of the same court, subsequent identical notices should be quashed based on that precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shrivinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP, through its authorized partner, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. The petition challenged notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur. The Central Board of Direct Taxes was also listed as a respondent. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer debatable due to a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of Section 148 notices had been conclusively decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan 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 contention from the revenue.

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. 4209/2022 Shrivinayak Samanvay Buildestates LLP, Having Address At 82-84, Green Colony, Moti Nagar Gaudhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur 302021, Rajasthan India Through Its Authorized Partner Satyapal Garhwal S/o Gopal Singh Garhwal, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of 82, Paradise Anand, Sirsi Road, Sirsi Jaipur- 302012, Rajasthan, India. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur Having Office At New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005, Rajasthan. 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 HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order 15/03/2022 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 /65

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →