M/S FASTWAY COMBINED CABLE NETWORK PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4568/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095610202309 July 2025Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously decided similar issues in the cases of Jatinder Singh Bhangu vs. Union of India and Jasjit Singh vs. Union of India. In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. Following these precedents, the present writ petition was disposed of in terms of those judgments. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the notice was quashed with liberty to the revenue to re-issue if permissible under the law. Any pending applications were also disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Fastway Combined Cable Network Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The challenge was based on the contention 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 respondent is the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana. The matter was heard by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction of the issuing authority, in light of CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022). Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 vests exclusive power in the NFAC to issue such notices. Revenue's contention: The revenue's counsel 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-4568-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 277-I CWP-4568-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.07.2025 M/s Fastway Combined Cable Network Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissione of Income Tax, Centgral Circle-2, Ludhiana

...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Nitika Garg, Advocate for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) 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 for the respondent has also not disputed the same. Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-4568-2024 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 30.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 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 09.07.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.07.18 15:51 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 →