CWP/20217/2024 of VIVEK SINGLA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS on 14 September 2026

1. N

2. M notice on beha

3. L issue involved by this Court India and oth CWP No.1574 and others, de under: “ B c IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIGA C D

Vs. a and others

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAN Mr. Rishab Singla, Advocate for ***

RAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral) Notice of motion. Mr. Amanpreet (A.P.) Singh, alf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the parties d in the present petition stands f in CWP No.21509 of 2023 title hers, decided on 29.07.2024, an 745 of 2024 titled as Jatinder Sin ecided on 19.07.2024. This Cour “16. We are in agreement with th Bench and hold that such circul could not have been issued to ove NJAB AND HARYANA ARH

Date of Decision: 03.09.2024

…Petitioner …Respondents NJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA NJAY VASHISTH the petitioner.

) Sr. Standing Counsel accepts are ad idem that the substantial finally examined and concluded ed as Jasjit Singh vs. Union of nd by the Coordinate Bench in ngh Bhangu vs. Union of India rt in Jasjit Singh (supra) held as he view taken by the Coordinate lar or instructions by the Board erride statutory provisions or to s l d f n a s e d

make them otiose or obsolete. Legislative enactments having financial implications are required to be followed strictly and mandatorily. By exercising the powers contained in 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. In the opinion of this Court, instructions and circulars can be issued only for the purpose of supplementing the statutory provisions and for their implementation.

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 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 proceedings initiated thereafter without conducting the faceless assessment as envisaged under Section 144B of the Act, 1961, have been 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 for want of jurisdiction.

19. The respondents-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 are allowed. The interim order passed by the Court shall stand merged with the present order.”

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 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer under Section 148 dated 30.03.2024 and all consequential proceedings are set aside.

5. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE

(SANJAY VASHISTH)

JUDGE 03.09.2024 rajesh

1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No

2. Whether reportable?

: Yes/No