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) 1237

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, PRANAV TRIVEDI, JJ. 
 
Vimal Vadilal Morakhiya (Huf) Through Its Karta Vimal Morakhiya - Petitioner 
Versus 
Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 2086 of 2023
Decided On : 21-08-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Avinash Poddar, Ms Anchal A. Poddar.
For the Respondents: Karan G. Sanghani.

Notices issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act after 01.04.2021 without adhering to section 148A(b) are invalid, emphasizing the necessity for compliance with updated procedural requirements.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 148 & 148A(b) - Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 - Notices issued under section 148 for Assessment Year 2015-2016 are invalid, having been issued after 31.03.2021 without the required notice under section 148A(b) - Such notices were not compliant with the statutory framework established post-01.04.2021 (Paras 2, 4, 9, 17).

(B) The Supreme Court's judgment in Ashish Agarwal emphasizes that notices issued post-01.04.2021 are contingent upon compliance with updated procedures, and failure to issue section 148A(b) renders subsequent notices void. (Paras 5, 10).

(C) Procedural integrity post-TOLA requires that notices not only follow statutory provisions but are also timely, which was violated in this case. (Paras 8, 12).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged notices issued for Assessment Year 2015-2016 under Section 148, claiming they were invalid due to non-compliance with section 148A(b) following the introduction of TOLA. The Revenue conceded the notices were invalid as they contravened the pre-2021 provisions, as outlined by the Apex Court (Paras 3, 9).

Findings of Court:
The Court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned notices and confirming that they were invalid due to timing and procedural deficiencies following the policy changes established by TOLA. (Paras 16, 18).

Issues: The main issues addressed include the validity of notices issued under section 148 post-01.04.2021 and whether they adhered to the procedural requirements mandated by section 148A(b).

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that the Revenue's failure to issue requisite notice under section 148A(b) before the issuance of section 148 renders the latter void, reflecting the procedural requirements imposed by the legislature (Paras 5, 10).

Result: The petition is allowed, with the impugned notice quashed.

Table of Content
1. challenges to notices under section 148 of the act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 6)
2. court's consideration of valid sanctions and procedural compliance. (Para 5 , 7 , 8)
3. acknowledgment of supreme court decisions affecting notice validity. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. final ruling on the invalidity of notice under tola. (Para 17 , 18)

ORDER :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Avinash Poddar for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan G. Sanghani 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 30.06.2021 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 23.05.2022.

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 ca

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