MINDSCAPE ONE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition in light of the Supreme Court's order in Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal. The Supreme Court had directed that impugned Section 148 notices issued under the unamended Act, which were subject to writ petitions, would be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide information and material relied upon, and assessees were to be given an opportunity to reply. The requirement of conducting an enquiry under Section 148A(a) was dispensed with as a one-time measure. The Assessing Officer was to pass orders under Section 148A(d) and then issue a notice under the substituted Section 148. All defenses available to the assessees, including under Section 149, were preserved. The High Court clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to raise any other issue, including jurisdiction, before the Assessing Officer and to approach the Court again if needed. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mindscape One Marketing Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner argued that the notice was illegal and without jurisdiction because the company had been amalgamated with Ready Roti India Private Limited effective April 1, 2015, making it a non-existent entity. The petitioner also submitted that the matter was covered by the Supreme Court's order in Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal. The respondents were the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was issued prior to the substitution of Section 148 by the Finance Act, 2021, is valid, or if it should be deemed to have been issued under Section 148A of the Act. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notice was per se without jurisdiction and illegal as it was served on a non-existent entity due to amalgamation. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ashish Agarwal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the validity of the notice in light of the amalgamation. However, the Supreme Court's order in Ashish Agarwal, which the petitioner relied upon, addressed the validity of notices issued under the unamended Section 148.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6883/2022 Mindscape One Marketing Private Limited (Since Amalgamated with Ready Roti India Private Limited) Having its address at F- 28, RIICO Industrial Area, Sare Khurd, Tehsil Tijara, Alwar- 301707 Earlier at L-37, Income Tax Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur – 302018. Through its Director Shri Subhash Chandra Agarwal. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 6, Jaipur having its address at New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur 302005. 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Having its address at North Block, New Delhi-110011 through its Chairman.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlote, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 10/05/2022 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has submitted that the matter is covered by order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and batch of appeals). 2. In the light of above submissions, the present petition is decided accordingly with the following directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra):
(2 of 4) [CW-6883/2022] “10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No. 524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under:- (i) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assessees can reply to the show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter; (ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts. Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the concerned Assessing Officer to hold any enquiry, if required; (iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under section 148A may issue notice under section 148 (as substituted); (iv) All defences which may be available to the assessees including those available under section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions which may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available. 11. The present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA and all judgments and orders passed by different High Courts on the issue and under which
(3 of 4) [CW-6883/2022] similar notices which were issued after 01.04.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act are set aside and shall be governed by the present order and shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The present order is passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to avoid any further appeals by the Revenue on the very issue by challenging similar judgments and orders, with a view not to burden this Court with approximately 9000 appeals. We also observe that present order shall also govern the pending writ petitions, pending before various High Courts in which similar notices under Section 148 of the Act issued after 01.04.2021 are under challenge. 12. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Allahabad and the similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts, more particularly, the respective judgments and orders passed by the various High Courts particulars of which are mentioned hereinabove, shall stand modified/substituted to the aforesaid extent only. All these appeals are accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 3. In addition to the above, he has submitted that the petitioner – Company has been merged with M/s. Ready Roti India Private Limited with effect from 01.04.2015. Order was passed under Section 391 - 394 of the Companies Act. In the light of above, he submits that the impugned notice is per se, without jurisdiction and illegal as notice cannot be served on an entity which is knowingly non-existent by the revenue. 4. We clarify that the petitioner would be at liberty to raise any other issue including the issue of jurisdiction before the learned Assessing Officer, further we grant liberty in favour of petitioner to approach the Court in accordance with law, if need so arise in future, by way of filing fresh writ petition.
(4 of 4) [CW-6883/2022] 5. In the light of above, writ petition is disposed of. 6. Consequent upon the disposal of the writ petition, the stay application filed therewith does not survive and the same also stands disposed of accordingly. (SAMEER JAIN),J (PRAKASH GUPTA),J KuD/MR/11
More judgments on Section 148
- Bha Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New DelhiITA 5208/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Nov 2026AY 2015-16
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saleem vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 3 Nov 2026
- Ms R Ess Iron And Steel PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And OrsGauhati · 3 Nov 2026
- Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee And Anr vs. Galactic Television And Communications PVT LTD And OrsDelhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Society For Human Resource Management Shrm vs. Strategic Hrm & Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026
- Sanjay Kumar Jain & Anr. vs. Nandi Ayurved & Ors.Delhi · 3 Nov 2026