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

PDF · subscribers
CWP/4662/2024HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01095605202309 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, disposing of it in terms of previous judgments by a Co-ordinate Bench 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). In those cases, the writ petitions were allowed on the same issue, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning was based on the established precedent of the Co-ordinate Bench concerning the jurisdictional issue arising from the CBDT circular. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition in terms of the cited judgments, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and consequential actions, subject to the revenue's right to re-initiate proceedings as per law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Fastway Sonipat Digital Network Pvt. Ltd., challenged a notice dated 27.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential actions for Assessment Year 2020-2021. The challenge was based on the contention that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction due to a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vested exclusive power to issue such notices in the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). The revenue, represented by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Ludhiana, did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the applicability of previous judgments.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 27.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2020-2021 is invalid on the ground that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction in light of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The issuing authority had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 as the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 specifically states that the NFAC has exclusive power to issue such notices. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute the issue raised by the petitioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-4662-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 277-2 CWP-4662-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision:-09.07.2025 M/s Fastway Sonipat Digital Network Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 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 27.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and consequential actions, 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 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-4662-2024 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 27.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and consequential actions, for AY 2020-2021, 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 →