M/S SHANTESHA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/107144/2025HC KarnatakaKAHC02019774202525 September 2025Bench: SURAJ GOVINDARAJ4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition. The court held that the petitioner's grievance, concerning the issuance of notices by the Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Authority, was a matter seized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 27736/2023 in Union of India vs. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order (No. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2025-26/1078027673(1) dated 30.06.2025) and the reassessment notice (No. ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2025-26/1078028419 dated 30.06.2025). The parties were directed to be bound by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforementioned SLP and to act accordingly. No other issues were decided.

What were the facts?

M/s. Shantesha Motors Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. The petitioner sought to quash an order and a reassessment notice, both dated June 30, 2025, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (respondent). The petitioner's primary grievance was that the notices were issued by the Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Authority. The respondents, represented by their counsel, accepted notice. The court noted that the issue raised by the petitioner was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No. 27736/2023 in Union of India vs. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reassessment notice and order, issued by the Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Authority, are valid and legal, turning on the interpretation of the relevant provisions governing the issuance of such notices and orders under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order and reassessment notice were invalid because they were issued by the Assessing Officer and not by the designated Faceless Authority, as per the prevailing procedures. The petitioner relied on the principle that procedural adherence is crucial for the validity of tax assessments. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue. However, by accepting notice and appearing before the court, it is implied they would defend the validity of the notices and orders issued by their officers.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13453 WP No. 107144 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 107144 OF 2025 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

M/S. SHANTESHA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, 1356 MUJAWAR COMPOUND, NEHRU NAGAR, NEHRU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. VIVEK CHANDRU KAMLARNI INCORPRATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAVI RAGHAVAN, KARANJOT SINGH KHURANA AND ROMIL HOTWANI, ADVOCATES)

AND:

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BELGAUM FEROJ KHIMJIBHAI COMPLEX, OPP CIVIL HOSPITAL, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE, BELGAUM, FEROJ KHIMJIBHAI COMPLEX, OPP CIVIL HOSPITAL, DR. AMBEDAKR ROAD, BELAGAVI-590001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH AND SMT. ROOPA, ADVOCATES)

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13453 WP No. 107144 of 2025

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, (A) A WRIT OF AND/OR ORDER AND/OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE, AND AFTER GOING INTO THE LEGALITY, VALIDITY AND PROPRIETY THERETO TO QUASH AND/OR SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2025- 26/1078027673(1) DATED 30.06.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT, ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE A. B. A WRIT OF AND/OR ORDER AND/OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE, AND AFTER GOING INTO THE LEGALITY, VALIDITY AND PROPRIETY THERETO TO QUASH AND/OR SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED REASSESSMENT NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2025-26/1078028419(1) DATED 30.06.2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1, ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE B. C. SUCH FURTHER ORDER OR ORDERS BE PASSED AND/ OR DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS BE GIVEN AS TO WHICH THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER. D. AWARD LITIGATION COSTS INCURRED BY THE PETITIONER IN FILING THIS WRIT.

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

ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

Sri.M.Tirumalesh and Smt. Roopa, learned counsel accept notice for respondents. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13453 WP No. 107144 of 2025

(a) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of the case, and after going into the legality, validity and propriety thereto to quash and/or set aside the Impugned Order No. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2025-26/1078027673(1) dated 30.06.2025 issued by respondent, enclosed herewith as Annexure A.

(b) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of the case, and after going into the legality, validity and propriety thereto to quash and/or set aside the Impugned Reassessment Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2025- 26/1078028419(1) dated 30.06.2025 issued by Respondent No. 1, enclosed herewith as Annexure B.

(c) Such further order or orders be passed and/ or direction or directions be given as to which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

(d) Award litigation costs incurred by the Petitioner in filing this Writ.

The only grievance of the petitioner is that instead of the Faceless Authority notice has been issued by the Assessing Officer. This issue is seized off by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Slp No.27736/2023 in Union of India vs. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills.

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13453 WP No. 107144 of 2025

In that view of the matter, the relief which has been sought are required to be granted, as such I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A certiorari is issued. The Order No. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2025-26/1078027673(1), dated 30.06.2025, at Annexure-A is quashed. Consequently, the Assessment notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148-1/2025-26/1078028419, dated 30.06.2025 at Annexure-B is quashed. iii. The parties would be bound by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Slp No.27736/2023 in Union of India vs. Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills and act accordingly.

Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

VB/CT: UMD/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →