Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar vs Union Of India on 14 August, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105302-DB
CWP-19859-2024
2024 (O&M)
Page 1 of 3
129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-19859-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.08.2024
.2024
RAJINDER KUMAR
. . . . Petitioner
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
. . . . Respondents
****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
****
Present: Mr Deepak Gupta, Advocate with
Mr.
Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel
Mr
Ms. Pridhi Sandhu, Jr. Standing Counsel
for the respondents/Revenue.
****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)
1. Notice of motion.
2. Mr.. Saurabh Kapoor, Sr. Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondents/Revenue respondents/Revenue.
3. Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue involved in the present petition stands finally adjudicated in view of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.21509 of 2023 titled as Jasjit Singh vs. Union others, decided on 29.07.2024, wherein this Court held as of India and others, under:
"16.
16. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and hold that such circular or 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 15-08-2024 10:11:46 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105302-DB CWP-19859-2024 2024 (O&M) Page 2 of 3 instructions by the Board could not have been issued to override statutory provisions or to make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having fina financial be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained Sections 119 and 120 of the Act, 1961 as well as Section 144B (7 & 8), the authorities cannot be allowed to usurp the legal provisions to their own satisfaction and convenience causing hardship to the assessees. It also leaves confusion in the minds of the taxpayers instructions and supplementing the statutory provisions and
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no occasion to distinguish or take a different view as suggested by the learned counsel for the revenue from suggested what has already been held by the Coordinate Bench.
18. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench (supra), notices issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Act, 1961 and the proceeding proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have beesn bee n found to be contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1961 and accordingly notices dated 28.02.2023, 16.03.2023, 20.03.2024 and 30.03.2023 and order dated 30.03.2023, are set aside 30.03.2023 for want of jurisdiction.
19. The respondents-revenue revenue would be, however, at liberty to follow the procedure as laid down under the Act, 1961 and proceed accordingly, if so advised.
20. All the writ petitions ns are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order."
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 15-08-2024 10:11:47 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105302-DB CWP-19859-2024 2024 (O&M) Page 3 of 3
4. Keeping in view above, we allow this Writ Petition in the aforesaid terms. The observations and order passed above shall apply mutatis mutandis to the present case. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 dated 31.03.2024 .2024 and consequential proceedings are set aside.
5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA SHARMA) JUDGE (SANJAY VASHISTH) JUDGE August 14,, 2024 Mohit goyal
1. Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
2. Whether reportable? Yes/No 3 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 15-08-2024 10:11:47 :::