Disposed

Hari Prasad Vijay v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Rajasthan HC25 May 2022CW/5599/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition following the directives of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal concerning the validity of section 148 notices issued after 01.04.2021 and procedural requirements under section 148A of the Income-tax Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of in accordance with the Supreme Court's order dated 04.05.2022 in Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal.

Hari Prasad Vijay Vs Assistant… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5599/2022

¶3

Hari Prasad Vijay, Aged About 57 Years, (A.y. 2013-14) S/o Late Shri Ramji Lal Vijay, R/o B-267, Janta Colony, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302004.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 4, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005.

¶7

Union Of India, Though Its Secretary, Central Board Of Direct Taxes, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi (Nct)-110001.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Vedant Agrawal,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Anuroop Singhi, Adv. with
		Mr. N.S. Bhati,Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

25/05/2022

¶13

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that assessment order has not been passed.

¶14

When this case came up for hearing today, learned counsel for the parties jointly submitted that the issue raised in this petition would be covered by order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India &

¶15

Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No. 3005/2022 and batch of appeals) .

¶16

Following directions have been issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case:

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-5599/2022]

¶19

“10. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No. 524/2021 and other allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and substituted as under:-

¶20

(i) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were the subject matter of writ petitions before the various respective High Courts shall be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, within thirty days from today provide to the respective assessees information and material relied upon by the Revenue, so that the assessees can reply to the show-cause notices within two weeks thereafter;

¶21

(ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if required, with the prior approval of specified authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed with as a one-time measure vis-à-vis those notices which have been issued under section 148 of the unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including those which have been quashed by the High Courts.

¶22

Even otherwise as observed hereinabove holding any enquiry with the prior approval of specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the concerned Assessing Officer to hold any enquiry, if required;

¶23

(iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each of the concerned assessees; Thereafter after following the procedure as required under section 148A may issue notice under section 148 (as substituted);

¶24

(iv) All defences which may be available to the assessees including those available under section 149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions which may be available to the concerned assessees and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be available.

¶25

The present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA and all judgments and orders passed by different High Courts on the issue and under which

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CW-5599/2022]

¶28

similar notices which were issued after 01.04.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act are set aside and shall be governed by the present order and shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The present order is passed in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to avoid any further appeals by the Revenue on the very issue by challenging similar judgments and orders, with a view not to burden this Court with approximately 9000 appeals. We also observe that present order shall also govern the pending writ petitions, pending before various High Courts in which similar notices under Section 148 of the Act issued after 01.04.2021 are under challenge.

¶29

The impugned common judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Allahabad and the similar judgments and orders passed by various High Courts, more particularly, the respective judgments and orders passed by the various High Courts particulars of which are mentioned hereinabove, shall stand modified/substituted to the aforesaid extent only.

¶30

All these appeals are accordingly partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶31

In the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.”

¶32

Accordingly, this writ petition is also finally disposed off in terms of order dated 04.05.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs. Ashish Agarwal (supra) , as stated above.

¶33

The authorities concerned shall proceed to decide the matter in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 10 of the aforesaid order.

¶34

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶35

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

¶36

JKP/Arun/9

Hari Prasad Vijay v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Prasad Vijay v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

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

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax Vs Shriram General Insurance Company Limited

M/S Khoj Engineering Company Vs Assistant Commissioner

M/S Khoj Engineering Company Vs Assistant Commissioner

Surendra Sharma S/O Radhey Shyam Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Yogesh Bhati S/O Ramu Ram Bhati Vs Rajasthan High Court

Dr. Gogalal Jat S/O Shri Rodulal Jat Vs State of Rajasthan