SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI, JJ.
 
Shwetabahen Bhaumik Soni - Appellant 
Versus
Government Of India - Respondent 
R/Special Civil Application No. 10252 of 2023
Decided on : 05-08-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR CHINTAN DAVE FOR HLP ASSOCIATES LLP
For the Respondent: MR.VARUN K.PATEL

Notices issued under tax law without following statutory procedures post-expiration of limitation periods are deemed invalid, emphasizing compliance as essential for lawful tax assessments.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 148 and 148A(b) - Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 - Notices issued for Assessment Year 2015-2016 challenged as they were not in compliance with the statutory requirements post the operation of TOLA - Respondent conceded that notices issued after 01.04.2021 are invalid due to expiration of the limitation period - Court has followed precedents set in related cases and quashed the notices. (Paras 3, 5, 9, 17)

(B) Legal Principle - The validity of notices under tax law hinges on compliance with statutory notice requirements and adherence to limitation periods set by law. (Paras 9, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested notices under section 148 for Assessment Year 2015-2016 asserting that they were issued without proper adherence to section 148A(b) requirements instituted by TOLA.

Findings of Court:
The court established that the notices issued were invalid due to the Revenue's concession regarding the time limits imposed by the Act, thus warranting quashing of the notices.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the legality of the notices issued under TOLA after the 31.03.2021 deadline and compliance with required procedures under the Income Tax Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the notices issued after the expiration of the statutory period are invalid, affirming the notion that procedural compliance is essential in tax assessments.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned notice quashed.

Table of Content
1. contextual examination of similar cases (Para 1 , 7 , 9)
2. challenged notices under income tax act (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. supreme court decision impacts notices (Para 8 , 10)
4. similar orders by various high courts (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. dismissal of time-barred notices (Para 16)
6. writ petition allowed, notice quashed (Para 17 , 18)

ORDER :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chintan Dave for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Varun K. Patel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged notices issued under section 148 of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 under the old regime in view of TOLA without issuing notice under section 148A(b) as required to be issued with effect from 01.04.2021.

3. Notice under section 148 under Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 [(2020) 422 ITR (St.) 116] (For short “TOLA”) was issued on 28.04.2021 whereas notice under section 148A(b) of the Act after judgment in case of Union of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal reported in (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC) was issued on 01.06.2022.

4. The respondent Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 148 of the Act after 31.03.2021 on the pretext that due to operation of TOLA, time limit for issuance of notice would be extended upto 30.06.2021.

5. Thereafter, considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra), notice issued under section 148 between 01.04.2021 and 30.06.2021 for Assessment Year 2015-2016 was deemed to be notice under section 148A(b) of the Act which has come into operation with effect from 01.04.2021 and thereafter as per the direction issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal(supra) department has issued the notices under section 148 of the Act between the month of July,2022 and August, 2022 after following the procedure of inviting reply and passing order under section 148A(d) of the Act.

6. The petitioners challenged such notices issued by the respondent Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2015-2016 pursuant to the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal(supra).

7. During the pendency of these petitions, similar notices which were issued for Assessment Years 2013-2014 to 2017-2018 came up for consideration on the ground of delay as well as on the ground of getting valid sanction before this Court and other High Courts. This Court in case of Keenara Industries (P.) Ltd vs. ITO reported in [2023] 147 taxamann.com 585 (Guj) allowed such petitions.

8. The matter was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal reported in (2024) 469 ITR 46 (SC) decided the issues raised with regard to delay as per the provisions of section 149 of the Act which has come into operation after 01.04.2021 as well as validity of sanction granted under section 155 of the Act.

9. During the course of hearing before the Hon’ble Apex Court, Revenue conceded to the effect that so far as Assessment Year 2015-2016 is concerned, Revenue could not have issued the notices under section 3(1) of TOLA as considering the time period as prescribed under section 149 of the Act with effect from 01.04.2021, three years would be over on 31.03.2019 which is prior to coming into force of TOLA and six years would be completed on 31.03.2022 which is after operation of TOLA. In such circumstances, notices for Assessment Year 2015-2016 are held to be invalid by Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal(supra).

10. The Hon’ble Apex Court followed the decision of Rajeev Bansal(supra) in case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes reported in [2025] 174 taxmann.com 144 (SC) and after recording the concession of the learned advocate for the department and in view of the concession given before the Apex Court by learned advocate appearing for the Revenue as recorded in para 19(f) of the judgment in cas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top