SPEEDFAST RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, in view of the submissions made by both counsels and referencing judgments from the Allahabad High Court (Ashok Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India), Rajasthan High Court (Bpip Infra Private Limited vs. Income Tax Officer), Delhi High Court (Man Mohan Kohli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax), and its own previous decisions in Manoj Jain vs. Union of India and Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited vs. Union of India, disposed of the writ petition. The Court declared Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated March 31, 2021, and April 27, 2021, as ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020, and consequently, bad in law and void. Accordingly, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was quashed. The Assessing Officers were granted liberty to initiate fresh reassessment proceedings in accordance with the amended provisions of the Finance Act, 2021, and after complying with all legal formalities. The petition was entertained subject to the petitioner paying Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the High Court Legal Services Committee within seven days for the delay in filing the petition.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Speedfast Residency Private Limited, is challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner contends that the notice is barred by limitation and that the respondent Income Tax Authority failed to comply with the statutory formalities prescribed under Section 148A of the Act, which became applicable from April 1, 2021, for notices issued on or after that date. The petitioner also seeks to declare certain explanations within Notifications No. 20 (dated March 31, 2021) and 38 (dated April 27, 2021) as ultra vires the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020, to the extent they extend the applicability of pre-amended Section 148 provisions beyond March 31, 2021. The writ petition was filed in March 2022, approximately ten months after the impugned notice dated April 26, 2021, was issued, without explanation for the delay.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the respondent Income Tax Authority observed the statutory formalities under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, prior to issuing the impugned notice under Section 148? 3. Whether Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to Notification No. 20 [S.O. 1432 (E) dated 31st March, 2021] and Notification No. 38 [S.O.1703 (E)] dated 27th April, 2021, to the extent they extend the applicability of the provisions of Section 148, Section 149 and Section 151 of the Act as they stood on March 31, 2021, beyond March 31, 2021, are ultra vires the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the Section 148 notice is barred by limitation and that the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 148A were not followed. The petitioner further contended that the aforementioned notifications extending the old provisions are ultra vires the parent legislation. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the revenue. However, it notes that both counsels jointly submitted that the issues are covered by previous High Court decisions.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
OD – 11 ORDER SHEET WPO/1768/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE SPEEDFAST RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date : 31st March, 2022. Appearance: Mr. Bikash Kumar Roy, Adv. …For the Petitioner Mr. Smarajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. …For the U.O.I. The Court : Heard Learned Counsels appearing for the parties. Petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that the same is barred by limitation and the respondent Income Tax Authority concerned, before issuing the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, have not observed the statutory formalities under Section 148 A of the Income Tax Act as prescribed by the Finance Act, 2021 which are applicable with effect from 1st April, 2021 before issuance of notices under Section 148 of the Act on or after 1st April, 2021. Issues arising in the present Writ Petition is purely legal and in this Writ Petition the assessee/petitioner has sought relief of quashing of the impugned re-assessment notice issued post 31st March, 2021 by the respondent Income Tax Authority concerned under Section 148
2 of the Income Tax Act, assessee/petitioner has also sought relief by way of a declaration declaring Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notification No. 20 [S.O. 1432 (E) dated 31st March, 2021 and Notification No. 38 [S.O.1703 (E)] dated 27th April, 2021 to the extent that the same extend the applicability of the “provisions of Section 148, Section 149 and Section 151 of the Act, as the case may be, as they stood as on the 31st March, 2021, before the commencement of the Finance Act, 2021” to the period beyond 31st March, 2021 as ultra vires the parent legislation, viz., The Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ Relaxation Act, 2020’). At the outset, both the counsel appearing for the parties jointly submitted that the issues involved in this Writ Petition is covered by the decision of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 30th September, 2021 in the case of ‘Ashok Kumar Agarwal –vs- Union of India through its Revenue Secretary North Block & Ors.’ (Writ Tax No. 524/2021) decided in favour of assessee/petitioner on 30.09.2021 and order of Rajasthan High Court dated 25th November, 2021 in the case of Bpip Infra Private Limited-vs.- Income Tax Officer, Ward 4 (1), Jaipur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13297/2021) and the order of Delhi High Court 15th December, 2021 in the case of Man Mohan Kohli –vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. In (W.P. (C) 6176 of 2021) and judgement and order of this Court dated 17th January, 2022 in the case of Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India & Ors. In WPA No.
3 11950 of 2021 and in the case of Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. In WPO 244 of 2021. In view of judgment and order of this Court dated 17th January, 2022 in the case of Manoj Jain Vs. Union of India & Ors. In WPA No. 11950 of 2021 and in the case of Bagaria Properties and Investment Private Limited & Anr. in WPO No. 244 of 2021, this Writ Petition being WPO No.1768/2022 is disposed of by allowing the same. Explanations A(a)(ii)/A(b) to the Notifications dated 31st March, 2021 and 27th April, 2021 are declared to be ultra vires the Relaxation Act, 2020 and are therefore bad in law and null and void. Accordingly, impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is quashed with liberty to the Assessing Officers concerned to initiate fresh re- assessment proceedings in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act as amended by Finance Act, 2021 and after making compliance of the formalities as required by the law. This writ petition is being entertained subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- to the High Court Legal Services Committee since the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, has been issued on 26th April, 2021 as appears from record and this writ petition has been filed in March, 2022, that is, almost after ten months from receipt of the impugned notice, without any explanation for such delay in filing this writ petition. Such cost has to be paid by the petitioner to the High Court Legal Services Committee within seven days from date and such cost will be utilised for the welfare of
4 street children. Receipt of payment is to be produced by the petitioner before this Court. List this matter as “To be Mentioned” on 13th April, 2022 for compliance. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/
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 →- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Surveillance System, Sambalpur vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST Odisha , CT And GST Commissionerate , Cuttack OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Himansu Palei vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST CBIC Keonjhar Division, KeonjharOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Access Worldwide Cargo vs. The Commissioner Of CustomsKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Greenlam Industries LTD And Another vs. The UOI And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026