AJAY KUMAR VIJAY S/O SHRI RAMAVTAR VIJAY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/4153/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02020011202215 March 2022Author: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,SAMEER JAIN1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the issue involved in the petition 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) on 27.01.2022. In that precedent, notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were found to be invalid and impermissible in law and were consequently quashed. Applying the ratio decidendi of the Sudesh Taneja judgment to the present case, the High Court found the impugned notice issued to the petitioner to be similarly invalid. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice and allowed the petition. The operative direction was to quash the notice and allow the writ petition.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ajay Kumar Vijay, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur. The petition challenged a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur. The petitioner argued that the issue was no longer res integra, citing a previous Division Bench decision in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch of petitions) dated 27.01.2022, which had found similar notices invalid and impermissible in law and quashed them. The respondents were the Income Tax Officer and the Central Board of Direct Taxes.

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 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 contended that the issue was no longer res integra and had been decided by the Division Bench of the High Court in the Sudesh Taneja case, where notices under Section 148 were quashed. Therefore, the present notice should also be quashed on the same grounds. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in this particular case. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue did not successfully counter the petitioner's reliance on the Sudesh Taneja judgment.

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. 4153/2022 Ajay Kumar Vijay S/o Shri Ramavtar Vijay, Having His Address At 134, Nirman Nagar, Jaipur In The State Of Rajasthan-302019 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur Having Its Address At New Central Revenue Building, Near Statue Circle, Jaipur. 2. Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Ministry Of Finance, Having Its Address At North Block, New Delhi-110011 Through Its Chairman. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, 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 /60

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →