Telangana High Court
M/S Rayalseema Steel Rerolling Mills ... vs Assessment Unit on 15 March, 2024
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, N.Tukaramji
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.6785 OF 2024
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY) Heard Mr.A.V.S.Siva Kartikeya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Vijhay K Punna, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents. Perused the material available on record.
2. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following relief:
"to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ Order or Direction declaring that the order passed by the 1st Respondent u/s 147 r/w Sec 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 01 03 2024 bearing DIN and Notice No ITBA/AST/S/147/202324/10618386711 for the Assessment Year 2018 19 as arbitrary illegal bad in law void ab initio violative of the principles of natural justice apart from being violative of Articles 14 191g and 265 of the Constitution of India and Sec 148A of the Income Tax Act 1961 and to consequently set aside the same in the interests of justice".
3. One of the contentions that the petitioner has raised in the present Writ Petition is that under the amended provisions of the Act which came into effect from 2 PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.6785 of 2024 01.04.2021, the respondents, while proceeding under Section 148 of the Act, were required to issue notice under Section 148A and provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. As per the amended provision of law, the proceedings to be drawn are also in a faceless manner.
4. Whereas, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, in the instant case, reopening has been initiated by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. In support of his contention, he relied upon the recent judgment rendered by this very Bench in WP.No.25903 of 2022 & batch, dated 14.09.2023 wherein this Court disposed of the batch of writ petitions to the limited extent.
5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Department does not dispute that the said objection was decided in the aforesaid batch of Writ Petitions. However, he further contended that apart from the aforesaid objection, there have been other various objections also which the petitioner has raised in the writ petition.
3
PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.6785 of 2024
6. So far as this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent-Department is concerned, this Bench, while disposing of said batch of writ petitions, had taken note of the same at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 which are reproduced herein under:
"37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner is sustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed on this very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the point of jurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further and decide the other issues raised by the petitioner which stands reserved to be raised and contended in an appropriate proceedings."
"38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measure exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceed under the substituted provisions, and this Court allowing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra."
7. In view of the same, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition also on similar terms. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands allowed on the objection of the petitioner that the proceedings have not been drawn in accordance with the amended provision but under the un-amended provision which is otherwise not sustainable. 4
PSK,J & NTR,J W.P.No.6785 of 2024
8. As has been held by this Bench in the aforesaid batch matters, the rights of the parties would stand reserved as is envisaged at paragraph Nos.37 & 38 of the said order passed in the batch of writ petitions. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J ____________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 15.03.2024 AQS