Notices by JAO Are Invalid Under Hexaware Precedent; Rights Reserved If SC Reverses Judgment

The HC held that notices issued by the JAO instead of the FAO are invalid, following the precedent set in Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Revenue's challenge to this law is noted, with a pending SLP before the SC, which currently has no stay. Accordingly, the HC quashed and set aside the impugned notices issued by the JAO. The court kept open all rights for parties to seek revival of petitions if the SC reverses the Hexaware judgment. Issues overlapping with Hexaware were decided accordingly, while other issues remain open for future consideration.

---

---

The Madras High Court, in a common order authored by the Chief Justice, resolved a conflict between two Single Judges regarding the validity of notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) versus the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO). One Single Judge held that issuance by the JAO was permissible, while the other, following the Bombay High Court's decision in *Hexaware Technologies Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax* [[2024] 162 taxmann.com 225 (Bombay)], held that it is "mandatory for the FAO to issue the concerned notices" and that notices issued by the JAO are invalid. The Division Bench adopted the *Hexaware* ruling, emphasizing that notices must be issued by the FAO, and accordingly quashed the notices issued by the JAO in the present petitions. The Additional Solicitor-General acknowledged no stay against *Hexaware* is in place, so its law applies, but reserved the Revenue's right to seek revival if the Supreme Court overturns *Hexaware*. The Court clarified: "if the Apex Court reverses the judgment of Hexaware Technologies Ltd (supra), parties will be governed by the decision of the Apex Court." All other issues raised, including those beyond *Hexaware*, remain open for future consideration. The petitions were disposed of in favor of the assessees, with no order as to costs, and interim applications were also disposed. The Court granted liberty to apply for revival should the Supreme Court rule differently.

---