Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24052
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
KOLARANGMA SILK KHADI GRAMODYOG SANGHA – Appellant
Versus
THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1 – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 26200 OF 2025 (T-IT)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri. R. Chandrasekhar, Kashinath Kalmath
For the Respondents: Sri. E.I. Sanmathi
Jurisdictional overreach in issuing tax notices invalidates them under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Writ of Certiorari - Quashing of assessments and notices issued under various sections of the Income Tax Act - The petitioner sought to quash notices and orders based on jurisdictional claims under the Act for the assessment year 2020-21. (Paras 1, 3, 4)
(B) Legal Precedents - The issue addressed is that similar grounds considered in prior disposal by this Court shall apply to current petition. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged multiple notices and orders under the Income Tax Act regarding assessments for the year 2020-21, contending they were issued outside the jurisdictional authority.
Findings of Court:
The impugned notices were found inoperative and quashed, allowing the petitioner’s request. The court emphasized the liberty for the revenue to revive if necessary based on pending matters in the Apex Court.
Issues: The court assessed the legality and jurisdiction of the notices and made a ruling based on previous similar judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that jurisdictional overreach in issuing notices invalidated them, reaffirming that past jurisprudence dictated the current decision.
Result: The petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to quash notices related to tax assessments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. previous case serves as precedent for current petition. (Para 3) |
| 3. court quashes notices outside statutory provisions. (Para 4) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:
“A. The Petitioner humbly pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing:
i) the notice issued u/s.148A(b) of the Act dated 12.02.2024 for 2020-21 year (Annexure D)
ITBA/AST/F/148A(SCN)/2023-24/10607859
52(1)] by the 1st Respondent;
ii) the order dated 25.03.2024 made u/s 148A(d) of the Act, for the assessment year 2020-21 (Annexure E) [ITBA/AST/F/148A/2023-
24/1063329255(1)] by the 1st Respondent;
iii) the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 25.03.2024 assessment for the year 2020-21 (Annexure-F) [ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2023-24/
1063329758(1)] by the 1st Respondent;
iv) the order dated 15.01.2025 made u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, for the assessment year 2020-21 (Annexure G) [ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-
25/1072206059(1)] by the 2nd Respondent;
v) the order dated 17.07.2025 made u/s 271B of the Act, for the assessment year 2020-21 (Annexure - H) ITBA/PNL/F/271B/2025-
26/1078624124(1)] by the 2nd Respondent;
vi) the order dated 24.07.2025 made u/s 270A of the Act, for the assessment year 2020-21 (Annexure – H-1) [ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2025 –
26/1078870994 (1)] by the 2nd Respondent;
B. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice, in the Petitioner's case.”
2. Heard Sri R. Chandrasekhar and Sri Kashinath Kalmath, learned counsel for Sri Rama Murthy R., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.I.Sanmathi, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The grounds projected in the subject petition in support of the prayer quoted supra are identical to the ones considered by this Court in W.P.No.28182/2024 and connected matters, disposed on 28.08.2025.
4. In the light of the issue being similar and the reasons rendered therein becomes applicable to the case at hand, the petition deserves to be disposed on the same lines. Therefore, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The impugned show cause notice issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer outside the scope of Section 151-A of the Act stand obliterated. All further proceedings initiated thereto, challenged in this petition would stand quashed.
(ii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents - revenue to revive the petition in the event, the Apex Court would hold in favour of the Revenue in the matter pending before it.
(iii) With the aforesaid liberty and to the aforesaid extent, the petition is allowed.
