Sri A. Jaipal Reddy vs. Union of India

PDF · subscribers
WP/14265/2022HC TelanganaHBHC01018897202212 April 2022Bench: SUREPALLI NANDA,UJJAL BHUYAN4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds of withdrawal. The petitioner's counsel sought leave to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the subsequently passed order of assessment before the appropriate forum. The Court granted this liberty. The Court noted that an assessment order had been passed under Section 147 read with Section 143 of the Act subsequent to the issuance of the impugned notice. Therefore, the challenge to the notice itself became moot as the petitioner intended to pursue remedies against the assessment order. The Court explicitly stated that the dismissal was on withdrawal and no order as to costs was made. Any pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sri A. Jaipal Reddy, filed a writ petition before the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad challenging a notice dated 31/03/2021 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent No. 3) under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The petitioner sought to quash this notice and declare it void, illegal, and arbitrary. An interim application was also filed seeking suspension of the impugned notice. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel informed the court that an assessment order had already been passed under Section 147 read with Section 143 of the Act pursuant to the impugned notice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated 31/03/2021 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15, is void, illegal, and arbitrary. (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 148 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the notice and declare it void, illegal, and arbitrary. The specific grounds for this challenge are not detailed in the judgment, but the prayer indicates a challenge to the validity of the notice itself. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments or contentions made by the revenue authorities (Respondents No. 1 to 4) regarding the validity of the notice or the assessment proceedings. The revenue was represented by counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 143

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

\ Between: SriA.JaipalReddy,S/oRajiReddy,aged6Tyears,8-2-12017715'RoadNo'2' Banjara Hitts, Hydeiabd 500033, Telangana, lndia. ...pErtT|oNER AND 1. Union of lndia, represented by its secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi -'l 10001 . Z. nOOitionblt LoinV Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. g. Risistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle - I 4(1 ), lT Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, HYderabad. a. income tax bfficer, ward- 16(3), lT Towers, AC Guards, *"'b -'tij}jn?5?R?g HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO:1 4265 0F 2022 Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to iSSUe a writ, direction or order more particularly in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 31/03/2021 issued by Respondent No. 3 and consequently declare the same as being void, illegal and arbitrary consequently set aside the same Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI N. RAJESHWAR RAO ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI J. V. PRASAD The Court made the following: ORDER lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition u"der Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the impugned notice dated 31t0312021 issued by Respondent No 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms' K. PRABHAVATI' COUNSEL FOR M/s. R. S. ASSOCIATES

THE HOI OURABLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL I3HUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPA]'LI NANDA ORDER: (Per Llon'ble Si Justice Uljal Bhuyan) Heard Ms. K.Prabhavati, learned coulsel for the petitioner; lVr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of llIr. N.Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent \o.1; and Mr. J.V'Prasad, learneC counsel for respondent l,los.2, 3 & 4. 2. ()hallenge made in this writ petition is to the notice dated 31.03.2021 issued by the 4th resprondt:nt under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196 1 (brieflv referred to hereinafter ts the 'Act') for the assessment year 2014- i5' 9'RIT PETITION No.14265 of 2O2:l 3. 'Mhen the matter is called upon, learned counsel for the pettioner submits that pursuant to the impugned notice, ass :ssment order has been passed under Section 747 read, llith Section 143 of the Act' She l.herefore prays for leave :o withdraw the writ petition v"ith liberty to

UBJ &S]V,J W.P.No.14265 of 2022 challenge the order of assessment before the appropriate forum. 4. In view of above, Writ Petition is dismissed on withdrawal with liberty as prayed for. However, there sha-ll be no order as to costs. 5. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, 2 if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. I SD/.K.AMMAJI //TRUE coPYtt ASSlsrANrrffitsrRAR To, SECTION OFFIcER 1. One CC to M/s. R. S. Associates Advocate tOpUCl 2 one cc to sri Namavarapu-RaJ"d;;;;il;,'xlsistant soricitor Generar (opuc) 3. one cC to Sril v prjsjo, Mi,;;[ioEU'6. 4. Two CD Cooies 5. One Spare boov MBC n '' MMA \'-\r-

HIGH COURT DATED: 1210412022 1trs STA t',a ( 'T :) C)() [ ?. Jljl" 2[22 z()]' * I ORDER WP.No.1 4265 of 2022 DISMISS]NG THE WRIT PETITION I\S WITHDRAWN, IVITHOUT COSTS \L{ ''t t ,-) a\>> r)

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →