DR. KESHAV JOSHI S/O. K.C. JOSHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2)

PDF · subscribers
CW/4126/2022HC RajasthanRJHC02020446202214 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 of 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. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). 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 quashed. Applying the ratio of the Sudesh Taneja case, the High Court held that the impugned notice issued to the petitioner in the present case was also invalid and impermissible. Consequently, the notice was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dr. Keshav Joshi, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the issue was no longer res integra, referencing a previous decision by a Division Bench of the same court dated January 27, 2022, in the case of Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch). In that prior judgment, notices issued under Section 148 were held to be invalid and impermissible in law and were quashed. The present petition was filed against the Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur, and the Union of India.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is invalid and impermissible in law? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue concerning the validity of notices under Section 148 had already been decided by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Sudesh Taneja Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3) & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 969/2022 and batch), where such notices 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 opposition to the petitioner's submission or the relief sought.

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. 4126/2022 Dr. Keshav Joshi S/o. K.C. Joshi, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Shankar Sadan, 05A, Adinath Marg, Opposite SMS Hospital, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2), Jaipur NCR Building, Statute 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) : Mr. Avinash Choudhary, Advocate for Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Advocate HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment / Order 14/03/2022 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 /3

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →