GANIKA STEELS vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/2140/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01012676202527 January 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, disposing of it in terms of the judgments passed in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). In those cited cases, a coordinate bench had allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue. The reasoning was that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Act, 1961, in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which mandates that the NFAC has exclusive power. The judgments in the cited cases granted liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition in terms of these precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ganika Steels, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.02.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a notice dated 05.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The respondent, Union of India, did not dispute this contention. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana considered the submissions and the case records.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order dated 05.02.2024 issued under Section 148A(d) and the notice dated 05.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 are invalid on the ground 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 notices under Section 148. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order and notice, as per the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which stipulates that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. 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 148A,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-2140-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 143 CWP-2140-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.01.2025 Ganika Steels

....Petitioner Vs. Union of India & ors.

...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Anurag Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr. V.Vedika Rao, Advocate for the respondent-Union of India. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to order dated 05.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and notice dated 05.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021. 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 2025.01.30 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-2140-2025 2 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.02.2024 issued under Section 148 A(d) of the Act, 1961 and notice dated 05.02.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2020-21, 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 10:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

More judgments on Section 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →