INDER GAS SERVICE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
CWP/7612/2025HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01042354202519 March 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 the judgments passed by a Co-ordinate Bench in Jatinder Singh Bhangu's case (decided on 19.07.2024) and Jasjit Singh's case (decided on 29.07.2024). These prior judgments allowed similar writ petitions on the same issue, granting liberty to the revenue to follow the procedure laid down under the Act, 1961, and proceed accordingly if so advised. The reasoning is based on the precedent set by the Co-ordinate Bench concerning the exclusive jurisdiction of the NFAC for issuing Section 148 notices as per the relevant CBDT circular. The operative direction is to dispose of the petition in line with these precedents.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Inder Gas Service, challenged a notice dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-2018. The challenge was to the jurisdiction of the issuing authority. The petitioner argued that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has exclusive power to issue such notices, as per a CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022. The Revenue did not dispute this contention. The High Court had previously dealt with similar issues in connected matters.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 09.04.2024, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2017-2018, is without jurisdiction in view of the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022, which vests exclusive power to issue such notices with the NFAC? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issuing authority lacked jurisdiction to issue the Section 148 notice because the CBDT circular dated 29.03.2022 mandates that the NFAC has exclusive power in this regard. The petitioner relied on the judgments of 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). Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel for the Union of India did not dispute the petitioner's contentions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

CWP-7612-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 192 CWP-7612-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-19.03.2025 Inder Gas Service ....Petitioner Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Ludhiana & ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Vishav Bharti Gupta, Mr. Ubhai Bharti Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Ranvijay Singh, Sr. Standing counsel for the respondent. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. Challenge in the instant writ petition is to notice dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘Act 1961”) and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018. 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole records of the case. Gaurav Arora 2025.03.24 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7612-2025 2 5. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 09.04.2024 issued under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and all consequential actions, for AY 2017-2018 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 19.03.2025

Gaurav Arora

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Gaurav Arora 2025.03.24 14:53 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 →