M/S Shree Hanuman Loha Private ... vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 3448 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                      NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                      WPT No. 145 of 2022

M/s Shree Hanuman Loha Private Limited, a company incorporated under
Companies Act, 2013, through its Director Shri Amit Jindal s/o Shri Maman
Ram Jindal, aged about 39 years, registered office at 251/252, Near
Agrasen Chowk, Bajrang Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                              ---- Petitioner

                                 Versus

1.   Union Of India Through The Ld. Secretary, Ministry Of Finance,
     (Department Of Revenue) No. 137, North Block, New Delhi-110001

2.   Central Board Of Direct Tax, Through Its Ld. Chairman Ministry Of
     Finance (Department Of Revenue) North Block, New Delhi, 110002

3.   Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur -1, New C.R. Building,
     Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

4.   Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1), Raipur, Aayakar
     Bhawan, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

5.   Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income
     Tax/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi (Now
     Known As National Faceless Assessment Centre), Ministry Of
     Finance (Department Of Revenue) North Block, New Delhi -110001

                                                         ---- Respondents

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, CGC For Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 : Mr. Amit Chaudhari, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, Judge

Order on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

11.05.2022

Heard Mr. Apurv Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard

Mr. Ram Narayan Sahu, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing

for respondent No.1 and Mr. Amit Chaudhari, learned counsel, appearing

for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

2. At the outset, Mr. Chaudhari submits that this case is squarely

covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Union

of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal , reported in (2022) SCC Online SC

543.

3. Mr. Goyal, however, submits that the present case is not covered as

the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not a

valid notice as the same was time-barred.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the aforesaid case holding

as follows :

"26. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,

the present Appeals are ALLOWED IN PART. The impugned

common judgment and orders passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad in W.T. No. 524/2021 and other

allied tax appeals/petitions, is/are hereby modified and

substituted as under:-

(i) The impugned section 148 notices issued to the

respective assessees which were issued under

unamended section 148 of the IT Act, which were

the subject matter of writ petitions before the various

respective High Courts shall be deemed to have

been issued under section 148A of the IT Act as

substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed

or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of

section 148A(b). The assessing officer shall, within

thirty days from today provide to 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;

(ii) The requirement of conducting any enquiry, if

required, with the prior approval of specified

authority under section 148A(a) is hereby dispensed

with as a one-time measure vis-a-vis those notices

which have been issued under section 148 of the

unamended Act from 01.04.2021 till date, including

those which have been quashed by the High Courts.

Even otherwise as observed hereinabove

holding any enquiry with the prior approval of

specified authority is not mandatory but it is for the

concerned Assessing Officers to hold any enquiry, if

required;

(iii) The assessing officers shall thereafter pass

orders in terms of section 148A(d) in respect of each

of the concerned assessees; Thereafter after

following the procedure as required under Section

148A may issue notice under section 148 (as

substituted);

(iv) All defences which may be available to the

assesses including those available under section

149 of the IT Act and all rights and contentions which

may be available to the concerned assesses and

Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law

shall continue to be available.

27. The present order shall be applicable PAN INDIA and

all judgments and orders passed by different High Courts

on the issue and under which similar notices which were

issued after 01.04.2021 issued under section 148 of the Act

are set aside and shall be governed by the present order

and shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The

present order is passed in exercise of powers under Article

142 of the Constitution of India so as to avoid any further

appeals by the Revenue on the very issue by challenging

similar judgments and orders, with a view not to burden this

Court with approximately 9000 appeals. We also observe

that present order shall also govern the pending writ

petitions, pending before various High Courts in which

similar notices under Section 148 of the Act issued after

01.04.2021 are under challenge.

28. The impugned common judgments and orders passed

by the High Court of Allahabad and the similar judgments

and orders passed by various High Courts, more

particularly, the respective judgments and orders passed by

the various High Courts particulars of which are mentioned

hereinabove, shall stand modified/substituted to the

aforesaid extent only.

5. A perusal of the above would go to show that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has laid down that all defences which may be available to the

assesses including those available under section 149 of the IT Act and all

rights and contentions which may be available to the concerned assesses

and Revenue under the Finance Act, 2021 and in law shall continue to be

available.

6. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that this

case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

rendered in Union of India & Others v. Ashish Agarwal (supra).

Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of in terms of the order passed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

                        Sd/-                                            Sd/-
               (Arup Kumar Goswami)                      (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
                    Chief Justice                                     Judge

Chandra