MS CHAUHAN PAPERS PVT LTD vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHKULA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/18137/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01101100202507 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the present writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024), decided on 19.07.2024, and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023), decided on 29.07.2024. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on similar grounds, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction is to dispose of the writ petition in line with these precedents. No specific issue was left undecided; the court followed established precedent.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Chauhan Papers Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, along with an approval dated 30.03.2025 and consequential actions, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vested exclusive power to issue Section 148 notices with the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential actions for AY 2019-2020 are invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 which grants exclusive power to the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, citing the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which states that the NFAC has exclusive power for such issuances. The petitioner relied on the judgments in Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 15745-2024) and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023). Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-18137-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 139 CWP-18137-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-07.07.2025 M/s Chauhan Papers Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Pkl & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Alok Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”); approval dated 30.03.2025 and consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and others, passed in CWP No. 15745-2024 and connected matter, decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India and others (CWP No. 21509-2023 and other connected matters), decided on 29.07.2024 . 3. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has also not disputed the same. Gaurav Arora 2025.07.11 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-18137-2025 2 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961; approval dated 30.03.2025 and consequential actions, for AY 2019-2020, on the ground that the Issuing Authority had no jurisdiction to issue the same, in view of the circular/notification dated 29.03.2022 of the CBDT, wherein, it has been specifically enumerated that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961. 6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra) and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), allowed the writ petitions on the same issue, as raised in the present writ petition, by granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of, in terms of Jatinder Singh Bhangu’s case (supra), decided on 19.07.2024 and Jasjit Singh’s case (supra), decided on 29.07.2024 8. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (LISA GILL)

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 07.07.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.11 16:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →