SARDAR JEWELLERS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7287/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01041075202518 March 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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 similar grounds, with liberty granted to the revenue to follow the prescribed procedure under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if advised. The reasoning hinges on the principle that if a statutory authority acts beyond its jurisdiction, especially when specific procedures or authorities are designated for certain actions by circulars or notifications, the action can be quashed. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with the precedents, implying the quashing of the impugned notice and allowing the revenue to re-initiate proceedings correctly if they choose to do so.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sardar Jewellers, challenged a notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-2020. The petitioner argued that the issuing authority, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 1, Ludhiana, lacked jurisdiction. This contention was based on a CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly grants exclusive power to the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to issue such notices. The respondents, represented by the Union of India, did not dispute this position.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020 is without jurisdiction, in light of the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which purportedly vests exclusive power to issue such notices in the NFAC? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner contended that the notice was issued by an authority without jurisdiction, citing the CBDT circular/notification dated 29.03.2022, which allegedly reserves the power to issue Section 148 notices exclusively for the NFAC. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contention regarding the issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-7287-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 150 CWP-7287-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-18.03.2025 Sardar Jewellers ....Petitioner Vs. Dy. commissioner of Income Tax Officer, Central Circle 1, Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Varun Issar, Sr. Standing counsel with Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “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 disputed the same. Gaurav Arora 2025.03.21 19:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7287-2025 2 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 for AY 2019-2020 issued by respondent No. 1, on the ground that he 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 18.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.21 19:15 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 →