ORDER

Mishra, J. -- 1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed assailing notice dated 22.4.2021(Annexure P/3), CBDT Instructions dated 11.5.2022 (Annexure P/7), order dated 19.7.2022 (Annexure P/11) passed section 148(A)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and notice dated 19.7.2022 (Annexure P/12) issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the respondents/authorities on the ground that the same are in violation of the judgment dated 4.5.2022 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Ashish Agarwal (Civil Appeal No.3005 of 2022).

2. It is submitted that the authorities have misinterpreted the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and by way of colorable excise of power issued the ultra-vires Instructions No.01 of 2022, thereby illegally extending the limitation for continuing reassessment proceedings under sections 147 read with section 148A, 148, 149 and 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner seeks to challenge legality, validity and propriety of the notice dated 22.4.2021 issued under un-amended and omitted section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, order dated 19.7.2022 passed under section 148 A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential notice dated 19.7.2022 passed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the respondent No.1 with respect to maintainability of the writ petition against a show cause notice as a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a show cause notice.

4. It is argued by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 that earlier assessment notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was subjected to challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the same is bad in law in view of the amendment made in the Finance Act, 2021, which has amended the Income Tax Act by introducing new provisions i.e. sections 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 01st of April, 2021. It is argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the appeals in part modifying the impugned orders to the extent that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may be deemed to have been issued under section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be a show cause notice in terms of section 148 A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and granted 30 days’ time to the Assessing Officer to provide 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. It is contended that in view of the modified directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, the authorities have again issued the impugned notices of assessment asking a response within 30 days from the petitioner. As far as contention of the petitioner that impugned orders/notices are without jurisdiction as the same is hit by limitation, a remedy of challenging the same, even the question of limitation is available to the petitioner in terms of section 246 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein a provision of appeal is provided. The appellate authority can look into the legality and validity of the impugned notices as well as the orders issued by the authorities in terms of the modified directions issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the present petition against the show cause notices is not maintainable in view of the judgment in the case of Union of India v. Kunishetty Satyanarayan reported in (2006) 12 SCC 28 for want of alternative efficacious remedy to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions and submits that the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court is misconstrued and misunderstood by the authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has never condoned the delay in taking up assessmen