9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sake of convenience and clarity]. 2. This order has to be read in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings made in the first listing of captioned writ petition and captioned WMPs on 05.12.2022, which reads as follows: 'In the captioned writ petition, an 'order dated 31.03.2022 bearing reference No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2021-22/1042352253(1) made under Section 148A(d) of 'The Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961)' [hereinafter 'IT Act' for the sake of brevity]' and a consequential 'notice dated 31.03.2022 bearing reference No.ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2021-22/1042359414(1) under Section 148 of IT Act' [hereinafter 'impugned order' and 'impugned notice' respectively for the sake of co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k covers the digital signature. 7. Registry to show the name of learned Revenue counsel in the next listing. 8. List in the Motion List on Friday i.e., on 09.12.2022.' 3. As the aforementioned proceedings are to be read as an integral part and parcel of this order, short forms and abbreviations used in the aforementioned proceedings shall continue to be used in the instant order also. 4. Today, Mr.Mr.Vikram Vijayaraghavan along with Mr.R.Venkata Narayanan of M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan Ramamani (Law Firm) for the writ petitioner and Mr.D.Prabhu Mukunth Arunkumar, learned Junior standing counsel (Revenue counsel) for the lone respondent are before this Court. 5. Learned Revenue counsel adverting to earlier proceedings submits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll which has culminated in the impugned order. This also means that the impugned notice should also go as it is a consequence of impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for writ petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent should be directed to provide to the writ petitioner-assessee information and material relied upon by the Revenue. In support of this submission, learned counsel for writ petitioner pressed into service judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in [2022] 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC). In response to this argument, learned Revenue counsel makes two submissions. Learned Revenue counsel drew the attention of this Court to writ petitioner's reply dated 31.03.2022 which is now the she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue counsel without any hesitation, this Court also considers that the submission of writ petitioner-assessee in this regard is no argument. b) As regards the second submission on Ashish Agarwal's case, this Court has no difficulty in agreeing with the submission of learned Revenue counsel as there is no disputation that on facts Ashish Agarwal's case is one where the Revenue had erroneously issued notice under the earlier regime though the new regime had kicked in on and from 01.04.2021. In this regard, this Court respectfully reminds itself of the declaration of law made by a constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the celebrated Padma Sundara Rao Vs. State of Tamil Nadu case reported in (2002) 3 SCC 533, which dea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to furnish material relied on qua 148A(b) notice. Learned Revenue counsel points out that Delhi High Court case (Mahashian Di Hatti) case is also clearly distinguishable on facts as that is a case where the writ petitioner's reply was considered but material was not furnished. Learned Revenue counsel points out that this has been captured in paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 of Delhi High Court order, which read as follows: '5. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent-Revenue, who appears on advance notice, states that the Petitioner has received accommodation entries from Raj Trading Company, which is one of the twenty-eight bogus entities maintained by Sh.Deepak Nanjyani. He also states that the Revenue is in p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court is of the view that the Revenue by asking the Petitioner-Assessee to respond to the aforesaid vague show cause notice was virtually asking the Petitioner to search for 'a needle in a haystack'. 13. This Court has no hesitation in agreeing with the submission of learned Revenue counsel that Mahashian Di Hatti case is clearly distinguishable on facts as that was a case where matter proceeded without providing material to assessee. In this regard, the declaration of law [not just ratio] made by constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in celebrated Padma Sundara Rao case (alluded to supra) would apply in equal force. To be noted, paragraph 9 of Padma Sundara Rao case has been extracted and reproduced elsewhere in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
