Disposed

Ravish Rastogi v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Sept 2025WTAX/908/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an assessment notice under Section 148A issued by the jurisdictional authority rather than the faceless officer. The court found the legal position fluid amid conflicting High Court rulings and pending SLPs, directed exchange of pleadings, and restrained passing of final orders meanwhile.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to participate in assessment proceedings; no final orders to be passed meanwhile.

Ravish Rastogi vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance New… — Income Tax | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 908 of 2025

Ravish Rastogi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance New Delhi And 3 Others

¶7

n ers			.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Aakash Himansh	Prasad, u Singh	Amitav	Singh,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I.,	Kushagra	Dikshit

¶8

Court No. - 2

¶9

HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Neerav Chitravanshi along with Sri Kushagra Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and perused the record.

¶11

This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶12

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Impugned Notice dated 11.06..2025 (ANNEXURE-3) issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 148A of the I.T Act."

¶13

It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that impugned notice has been issue by the Jurisdictional Assessment Authority, whereas it should have been issued by the faceless Assessing Officer.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench in Writ-Tax No.335 of 2024 : The Association Journals Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and others, where the writ petition was filed challenging the notices issued under Section 148 and 148A(b) of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Authority on the same grounds.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Division Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Court noticed other judgments passed by other High Courts of Punjab & Haryana and Telangana. The Revenue Authorities however has placed reliance upon judgments rendered by Madras High Court, Delhi High Court & Calcutta High Court. Such

¶16

WTAX No. 908 of 2025

¶17

¶18

judgments were also noticed by the Division Bench. The Court observed in paragraphs-6 & 7 as follows:-

¶19

"6. We have gone through the aforesaid judgments. The legal position appears to be fluid, especially as, against the Bombay High Court judgment referred hereinabove which is being relied upon by the petitioner's counsel, a Special Leave Petition has been filed wherein notices have been issued but no interim order has been passed staying the said judgment, similarly, against the decision of the Delhi High Court an SLP (Diary No. 60848 of 2024) has been filed as informed by the counsel for the Revenue by the aggrieved assess but there is no order staying the judgment of the Delhi High Court.

¶20

7. In view of this, we are of the opinion that legal issues raised in the writ petition require consideration. We accordingly provide that no final order shall be passed in the proceeding impugned herein, but, this is subject to any order being passed in the SLPs referred hereinabove by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. "

¶21

Let pleadings be exchanged between the parties.

¶22

List after eight weeks, along with Writ-Tax No.335 of 2024 and similar matters, where notice under Section 148 and Section 148A(b) have been challenged on same grounds regarding jurisdiction of the jurisdictional Assessment Officer.

¶23

In the meantime, the petitioner may participate in the impugned assessment proceedings, but no final orders be passed, if the same has not been passed already.

¶24

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶25

September 10, 2025 Pks

¶26

Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ravish Rastogi v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravish Rastogi v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance New Delhi and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta Sharma vs Distt. Magistrate Distt. Lakhimpur Kheri and 5 Others

Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Excise U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Sushil Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Ayodhya and 3 Others

Kunwar Masood Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Urmija Kumari vs District Magistrate,Lucknow and 12 Others

M/S Urban Hermit Cafe Thru. Authorized Signatory Vinay Kumar Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Administration and 6 Others