[2025:RJ-JP:37884-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14231/2025 M/s Gem Exports, 103, Ridhi Sidhi Building Ahanisa Circle, C- Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)-302001. Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Brijesh Ghiya S/o. Late Sh. B.D. Ghiya. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India, Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-I, NCRB, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 3. The Principal Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur-1, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC), New Delhi 11001 Through Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Ghiya with Ms. Paridhi Jain, Mr. Mayank Vyas and Mr. Nikhil Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Bapna with Mr. Meyhul Mittal Mr. Palash Gupta on behalf of Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 17/09/2025 1. At the outset, Mr. Ghiya states that the legal ground that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not valid because it has been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), has not been taken. Counsel states in the Court that petition is yet to be [2025:RJ-JP:37884-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-14231/2025] admitted and if the Court insists, petitioner will take out an application for adding grounds. 2. Mr. Bapna states that since this Court has taken a view that such a notice will be invalid, he will not insist on formal amendment in the petition. 3. Ground referred to is that the notice dated 31.03.2023 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) and this Court in the case of Shree Cement Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax & Others following Sharda Devi Chhajer Vs. The Income Tax Officer & Another and Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 15(1)(2), has held that such a notice will be bad and not valid. 4. At the same time, Mr. Bapna states that in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Revenue has preferred a Special Leave Petition and notice has been issued. Counsel states that in view of the law as it stands today, Court may grant the prayer of petitioner but in case the Apex Court interferes with judgment in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. (supra), Sharda Devi Chhajer (supra) or Shree Cement Limited (supra), then Revenue should be given liberty to revive the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. 5. Mr. Ghiya states that in view of the above, for the present, petitioner will reserve its right to raise other grounds at an appropriate stage. [2025:RJ-JP:37884-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-14231/2025] 6. Therefore, keeping open all rights and contentions of parties, we quash and set aside notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act with liberty, as prayed. 7. Since we have held that notice dated 31.03.2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act itself is not valid, the consequential assessment order dated 29.03.2024 cannot be sustained and the same also stand quashed and set aside. 8. Petition allowed. 9. Consequently, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J AMIT/56