PURSE SEINE FISHERMENS PRIMARY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
WP/21768/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01044500202418 November 2025Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned assessment order dated March 22, 2024, and the consequential penalty notice dated March 22, 2024, were violative of the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the Assessing Officer had not considered the petitioner's reply dated March 11, 2024, which was filed in response to the show-cause notice dated March 10, 2024. The Court also noted that the Assessing Officer had not considered the petitioner's new PAN and filed returns before passing the order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and penalty notice and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the petitioner's reply dated March 11, 2024, and any additional submissions before proceeding in accordance with the law.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Purse Seine Fishermens Primary Service Co-operative Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging an order dated March 22, 2024, passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer failed to consider their reply dated March 11, 2024, submitted in response to a show-cause notice dated March 10, 2024. This failure, according to the petitioner, violated the principles of natural justice. The Revenue argued that the petition lacked merit. The Court noted that the impugned order itself indicated that the petitioner's reply was not considered before passing the assessment order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated March 22, 2024, passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is liable to be quashed for violating the principles of natural justice by failing to consider the petitioner's reply dated March 11, 2024, to the show-cause notice dated March 10, 2024, under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer's failure to consider their reply dated March 11, 2024, to the show-cause notice dated March 10, 2024, constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the subsequent assessment order invalid. They also highlighted that a new PAN and filed returns were not considered. Revenue's Contention: The respondent-revenue submitted that the petition had no merit and was liable to be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48336 WP No. 21768 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 21768 OF 2024 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

PURSE SEINE FISHERMENS PRIMARY SERVICE CO-OPEARATIVE SOCIETY LTD., FISHERIES ROAD, KOTA POST, BRAHMAVARA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 221 REPRESENTED BY ITS C.E.O. MR RAMA SUVARNA, AGE 59 YEARS (SOCITY REGISTERED UNDER KCS ACT, 1959) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 AND TPS, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, ADI-UDUPI MALPE ROAD, UDUPI – 576 101

2.

ASSESSING OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI – 100 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. THIRUMALESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22/03/2024 BEARING DIN NO. ITBA/AST/S/147/2023- 24/1063139880(1) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT MARKED AS ANNEXURE-“N” BY ISSUING A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.,

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48336 WP No. 21768 of 2024

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, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:- “(i) Quash the order dt: 22.03.2024 bearing DIN No.: ITBA/AST/S/147/ 2023-24/10631398801(1) issued by the 2nd Respondent marked as ANNEXURE-“N” by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari; (ii) Quash the consequential penalty notice dt: 22.03.2024 bearing DIN No.: ITBA/PNL/S/270A/2023- 24/1063140354(1) issued by the 2nd Respondent marked as ANNEXURE-“Q” by issuing a writ in the nature of Certiorari; and (iii) grant such other relief as may be deemed fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of equity and justice.”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3.

In addition to reiterating various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the reply dated 11.03.2024 at Annexure-L1 to point out that pursuant to the show-

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48336 WP No. 21768 of 2024

cause notice dated 10.03.2024 issued by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed the aforesaid reply to the said show-cause notice. Further, the 2nd respondent passed an Assessment order dated 22.03.2024. The counsel for the petitioner pointed out to the impugned order dated 22.03.2024, in order to show that the 2nd respondent did not consider the reply dated 11.03.2024 filed by the petitioner and proceeded to pass the impugned order thereby violating principles of natural justice and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition.

4.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-revenue submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

5.

A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the petitioner filed its reply dated 11.03.2024 to the notice issued by the respondent dated 10.03.2024. It is also borne out from the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 that the 2nd respondent has not considered the reply dated 11.03.2024 filed by the petitioner and has proceeded to pass the impugned order. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48336 WP No. 21768 of 2024

notices, proceedings culminating in the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice and consequently, the impugned order deserves to be set aside by adopting justice oriented approach and by directing the 2nd respondent to consider the reply dated 11.03.2024 filed by the petitioner and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law. It is also relevant to state that though the petitioner has obtained a new PAN No.AAEAP3014E and filed returns, the same has not been considered by the 2nd respondent before passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the I.T.Act, which is yet another circumstance to vitiate the impugned order.

6.

In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned assessment order at Annexure-N dated 22.03.2024 and the Penalty Notice at Annexure-Q, passed/issued by the 2nd respondent are hereby quashed. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent for reconsideration afresh in

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48336 WP No. 21768 of 2024

accordance with law, from the stage of considering the reply dated 11.03.2024 filed by the petitioner to the show-cause notice dated 10.03.2024. (iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit additional response/reply along with the documents to the 2nd respondent, who shall consider the same and proceed further in accordance with law.

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

BMC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →