Writ Petition Against Show Cause Notice Issued U/S 148A(b) Of Income Tax Act Not Maintainable: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that a writ petition filed against a show cause notice issued by the authorities under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable, this was observed in the case of HARINDER SINGH BEDI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [WRIT PETITION No. 22734 of 2022], the case was presided over by Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra
FACTS OF THE CASE
The Petitioner/Assessee had filed a writ petition challenging the notice issued to him under the unamended and omitted Section 148 of the Act, the order was passed under Section 148A(d) and the consequential notice passed under Section 148 of the Act against him.
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.
The Petition has been filed assailing notice passed Section 148(A)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and notice dated 19.07.2022 (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 04.05.2022 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Ashish Agarwal.
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, 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 4 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.
With respect to the argument on limitation raised by the Petitioner, the Respondent authorities submitted that the same could be raised by him by preferring an appeal before them under Section 246 of the Act.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The Court refrained to interfere in the impugned orders/notices passed by the authorities as the same is issued in pursuance to judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The present petition is held to be not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunishetty Satyanarayan (supra) and in view of availability of alternative efficacious remedy to the petitioner. 10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VYSHNAVI KRISHNAN.