VINEET MIGLANI vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/1987/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01012072202527 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,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 its previous judgments 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 issues, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning in those judgments, which the present case follows, would have addressed the jurisdictional issue raised by the petitioner concerning the NFAC's exclusive power as per the CBDT circular.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vineet Miglani, challenged a notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and an approval dated 13.04.2023 under Section 151 of the Act, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly granted exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The revenue did not dispute this contention. The High Court considered its own previous judgments on similar issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the approval dated 13.04.2023 under Section 151 of the Act, are invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 conferring exclusive power on the NFAC to issue Section 148 notices? (Question of law) Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice and approval as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power in the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the assessee's contention.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-1987-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 126 CWP-1987-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.01.2025 Vineet Miglani

....Petitioner Vs. Unio of India & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Muskan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) as well as approval dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 151 of the Act 1961, 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 Gaurav Arora 2025.01.30 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-1987-2025 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 13.04.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 as well as approval dated 13.04.2023 issued under Section 151 of the Act 1961, 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. (ARUN PALLI) (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE JUDGE 27.01.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.01.30 10:42 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 →