Notices issued under Section 148 that fail to comply with established time limits are invalid and cannot be enforced, as per legal interpretations upheld by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.

Learned advocate Mr. Yogesh B. Shah for the petitioner has filed a draft amendment. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Yogesh B. Shah for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent.

3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani waives service of notice of rule.

4. Having regard to the controversy involved which is in a narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

5. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the notice dated 29.06.2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act (For short “the Act”)as well as the subsequent order dated 21.07.2022 was passed under 148A(d) of the Act. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Yogesh Shah for the petitioner submitted that the notice dated 29.06.2021 under Section 148 of the Act is issued under the provisions of the Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (For short “TOLA”) and as per the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal , reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC) such notice would be an invalid notice as only one day time would be available with the Assessing Officer to issue the notice in compliance with the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 .

5.1.It was further submitted that admittedly the notice under Section 148 A(b) of the Act pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) was issued on 28.05.2022 and thereafter the petitioner – assessee filed reply dated 09.06.2022 and 04.07.2022 and the order under Section 148 A(d) of the Act was passed on 21.07.2022 along with notice under Section 148 of the Act. It was submitted that as per the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court the entire process ought to have been done within the time period of issuance of notice under TOLA which is 30.06.2021 and, therefore, admittedly one day time was left as the notice under TOLA was issued on 29.06.2021. It was, therefore, submitted that as per decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), the notice dated 29.06.2021 as well as the subsequent notice dated 21.07.2022 would be invalid.

6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent could not controvert the above submissions as the notice under TOLA was issued on 29.06.2021 and only one day time would be left with the Assessing Officer to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal (supra) which was humanly impossible and as such the notice dated 21.07.2022 would be invalid as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), it would be germane to reproduce the observations made thereunder so as to apply the same to the facts of the case as under:

“92. This Court specifically mentioned that its directions would also apply to three categories: (i) the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; (ii) all judgments and orders passed by the different High Court on the issue where notices issued under Section 148 of the old regime after 1 April 2021 were set aside; and (iii) writ petitions pending before various High Courts in w