PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/32743/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC01069658202503 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR4 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka, after hearing the matter, noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition may be disposed of as withdrawn, reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue available remedies, including approaching the respondent authorities and filing a fresh writ petition if necessary. The Court placed this submission on record and ordered that the petition stands disposed of as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law. Furthermore, liberty was specifically reserved for the petitioner to submit its reply to the impugned notice dated 04/09/2025, and if such a reply is submitted, the respondent authorities are directed to consider it and proceed in accordance with the law. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka. The petition challenged a digitally signed notice under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 04/09/2025, issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Tiptur (Respondent No.1). The petitioner sought to quash this notice and consequently sought a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to provide an opportunity to submit a reply or response. The respondents included the Income Tax Officer, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-2, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), and the Assessment Unit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the digitally signed and electronically communicated notice under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 04/09/2025, issued by Respondent No.1 is liable to be quashed? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961). 2. Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing Respondent No.1 to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to submit its reply/response to the impugned notice? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the notice and sought a direction for an opportunity to respond. The judgment does not explicitly record the specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel beyond the reliefs sought. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 221(1),Section 151,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44035 WP No. 32743 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 32743 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., *TALAKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 224, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, * SRI. T. SHASHIDHARA THE SOCIETY IS REGITERED UNDER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ACT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARAJA S.,ADVOCATE) AND:

1.

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.1, TIPTUR, THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, UNDER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, JAYADEVA COMPLEX, TIPTUR, TUMKUR-572201.

2.

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-2, THE SPECIFIED AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BMTC BUILDING, 80 FEET ROAD, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR KHB GAMES VILLAGE, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095.

3.

NATIONAL FACELESS, ASSESSMENT CENTRE (NFAC), A CENTRE DESCRIBED UNDER SECTION, 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP,

* Corrected vide Court Order dated: 27.04.2026.

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44035 WP No. 32743 of 2025

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110003, REP. BY PR.CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NEAC).

4.

ASSESSMENT UNIT, A UNIT CREATED UNDER SECTION, 144B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ROOM NO.401, 2ND FLOOR, E-RAMP, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU STADIUM, DELHI-110003, REP. BY PR. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (NEAC) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M DILIP AND SRI E I SANMATHI, ADVS. FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE DIGITALLY SIGNED AND ELECTRONICALLY COMMUNICATED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 221(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 04/09/2025 BEARING DIN AND NOTICE NO.ITBA/RVC/S/2021/2025-26/1080341715(1) ISSUED BY THE R1 AS PER ANNX-C. B) CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE R1 TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER TO SUBMIT ITS REPLY/ RESPONSE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a) To issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other writ or order or direction to quash the digitally signed and electronically communicated notice under section 221(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 dated 04.09.2025 bearing and notice No.ITBA/RVC/S/2021/2025-26/1080341715(1) issued by respondent No.1 as per Annexure-'C'.

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44035 WP No. 32743 of 2025

b) Consequently, issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to submit its reply/response.

c) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

2.

After arguing the matter for sometime, Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition may be disposed of as withdrawn reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedies as available in law including approaching the respondent authorities as well as subsequently filing a writ petition before this Court. 3. Submission is placed on record.

4.

Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to such remedy as available in law, including approaching the respondents as well as approaching this Court if the occasion so arises. 5.Liberty is also reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit his reply to the impugned notice at Annexure C dated 04.09.2025

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44035 WP No. 32743 of 2025

and if the petitioner submits such a reply, the respondent shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

CM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

More judgments on Section 221(1)

All 159 judgments and leading authorities on Section 221(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →