GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the Supreme Court hold?
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition as premature. However, it clarified the procedure for issuing Section 148 notices, requiring the Assessing Officer to provide reasons and dispose of objections with a speaking order.
What were the facts?
The appellant challenged the validity of notices issued under Sections 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, via a writ petition. The High Court dismissed the petition as premature, stating objections could be raised in the reply to the notices.
What were the issues?
Whether a writ petition challenging the validity of notices under Sections 148 and 143(2) is maintainable at that stage, and the proper procedure for issuing such notices.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cited by 1,349 judgments on BharatTax
See all citing judgments →Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.
- M. Abbas & Co., Mumbai v. ACIT 24(2), MumbaiMumbai · 2026-04-21
- Snehalatha Singhi, Bangalore v. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), BangaloreBangalore · 2026-04-17
- Pragnesh Amrutlal Gajjar, Ahmedabad v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(2), AhmedabadAhmedabad · 2026-04-10
- ACIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi v. Oxy Homez Promoters Pvt Ltd, New DelhiDelhi · 2026-04-08
- Lasco Chemie Private Limited, Delhi v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-15(2), New Delhi, DelhiDelhi · 2026-04-08
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT 2002 Supp(4) SCR 359 The following Order of the Court was delivered : Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave is granted.
By the order under challenge, a Division Bench of the High Court at Delhi dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the validity of notices issued under Sections 148 and 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High Court took the view that the appellant could have taken all the objections in its reply to the notices and that, at that stage, the writ petition was premature. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed on 31st January, 2001. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant is in appeal before us.
Mr. M.L. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the impunged notices relate to seven assessment years; that during the pendency of these appeals, in respect of two assessment years, viz., 1995-96 and 1996-97, assessment has been complete
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 148
- 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
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
