VIJETA BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/19060/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01102119202511 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed by its co-ordinate benches in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These previous judgments had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's argument regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority due to the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which was not disputed by the revenue and was consistent with prior judicial pronouncements. The ratio decidendi is that notices under Section 148 issued by authorities other than the designated NFAC, in contravention of CBDT circulars, are liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vijeta Beverages Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 05.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2018-2019. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer and others, did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered previous judgments by its co-ordinate benches on similar issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 05.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2018-2019 is invalid on the grounds that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in view of CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which specifies that the NFAC has exclusive power. 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 respondents 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

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 CWP-19060-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-11.07.2025 Vijeta Beverages Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 2, Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. B.M. Monga, Mr. Rohit Kaura, Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the present petition is to notice dated 05.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961’) and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019. 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 the respondents has also not Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

2 disputed the same. 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 05.03.2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2018-2019, 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 11.07.2025

Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:53 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 →