Court upholds dismissal of writ petitions challenging Income Tax Act notices & orders, emphasizing challenges during reassessment proceedings.

The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging notices under Section 148-A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential orders under Section 148-A(1)(d). Interim orders restraining the Income Tax Department from coercive action were issued. Prior judgments held challenges should be raised during reassessment, not at the order stage. The Supreme Court's order dismissing a similar challenge was upheld, emphasizing grievances should be raised during reassessment. Despite conflicting decisions by other High Courts, the Supreme Court's order was deemed binding. The court clarified that all challenges could be addressed during reassessment proceedings, leading to the disposal of the petitions and lifting of interim orders.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to notice under Section 148-A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and consequential order under Section 148-A(1)(d) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitions challenged the notices issued to the Petitioner-Assessees under Section 148-A(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the consequential orders passed under Section 148-A(1)(d) of the Act.
2. Interim orders were issued restraining the Respondent/Income Tax Department from taking coercive action against the Petitioners during the pendency of the petitions.
3. Previous judgments by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that challenges to such notices and orders could be raised during reassessment proceedings, not at the stage of the orders under Section 148-A(1)(d) of the Act.
4. The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition challenging a similar order, stating that if the Assessee has grievances on merits, they should be raised during reassessment proceedings.
5. Despite the Supreme Court's order, the Calcutta High Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued conflicting decisions on similar challenges, leading to varied interpretations.
6. The Petitioners argued that the Supreme Court's order should not be binding as a precedent, citing various judgments, but the Orissa High Court found the Supreme Court's order to be a binding precedent.
7. The Petitioners raised multiple grounds of challenge, including limitation, lack of personal hearing, and non-application of mind, which could be addressed during reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.
8. The Court emphasized that all grounds raised in the writ petitions would be available for challenge during reassessment proceedings, along with any additional grounds deemed necessary.
9. It was clarified that all grounds raised during reassessment proceedings must be dealt with in accordance with the law by the relevant authority under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act.
10. Consequently, the Court disposed of all the writ petitions and lifted all interim orders, allowing the challenges to be addressed during the reassessment proceedings as per the law.

---