Jurisdictional defect in reassessment notices can warrant writ relief and interim stay where issuing authority or notice period is flawed.

Notices under the Income-tax regime were challenged on two grounds: that issuance by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than the faceless assessing authority rendered the notice jurisdictionally invalid, and that providing only thirty days to furnish a return contravened the amended statutory mandate requiring a minimum three-month period. The court treated both contentions as arguable jurisdictional defects permitting writ adjudication despite alternative remedies and granted interim relief by staying the reassessment order, demand and related penalty show-cause notice pending final disposal, noting prior precedent and non-commencement of the conflicting provision as relevant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was invalid because it was issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer in light of Hexaware Technologies Ltd.; (ii) Whether the Section 148 notice was invalid for giving only 30 days to file a return when, after amendment with effect from 1 April 2023, a minimum period of three months is required.

Issue (i): Whether the Section 148 notice was issued without jurisdiction because it emanated from the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rather than the Faceless Assessing Officer as held in Hexaware Technologies Ltd.

Analysis: The petition raises an arguable jurisdictional question concerning the validity of issuance authority for notices under Section 148 after Hexaware Technologies Ltd.; the judgment in Hexaware has not been set aside by the Supreme Court and Section 147A has not been brought into force to negate the said decision. The challenge therefore engages a substantive jurisdictional principle that the writ forum can entertain notwithstanding the availability of alternate remedies.

Conclusion: In favour of Assessee. The writ petition is maintainable on this jurisdictional issue and Rule is issued.

Issue (ii): Whether the Section 148 notice is bad for providing only 30 days to furnish a return contrary to the requirement of a minimum three-month period under the amended provision effective 1 April 2023.

Analysis: The petition presents a substantive contention that the amended statutory regime mandates a minimum three-month period to furnish a return and that a notice allowing only 30 days thereby lacks the mandatory statutory requirement. This raises an arguable jurisdictional defect going to the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

Conclusion: In favour of Assessee. The challenge to the adequacy of the notice period is maintainable and forms part of the grounds on which interim relief is granted.

Final Conclusion: The Writ Petition raises arguable jurisdictional questions on both the issuing authority and the requisite notice period under Section 148 and is fit for judicial adjudication; interim relief is granted staying the operation of the impugned reassessment order, notice of demand and related penalty show-cause notice pending final disposal of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Where substantive jurisdictional defects are plausibly pleaded in relation to the authority issuing a notice under Section 148 and to mandatory notice-period requirements, a writ court may entertain relief notwithstanding availability of alternate remedies and may grant interim relief pending final adjudication.

---