Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
The HC held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2017-18 on 1st May 2024 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, since the six-year period expired on 31st March 2024. The court rejected the argument that the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) could extend this limitation period once the first proviso's restriction is breached. Furthermore, the impugned notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was declared invalid and bad in law for non-compliance with Section 151A. The decision aligns with precedents from the Bombay HC and has been followed by other High Courts, reinforcing that notices under Section 148 must be issued by FAO to be valid. Consequently, the notice in question was quashed.
The HC held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2017-18 on 1st May 2024 is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act, since the six-year period expired on 31st March 2024. The court rejected the argument that the fifth and sixth provisos to Section 149(1)(b) could extend this limitation period once the first proviso's restriction is breached. Furthermore, the impugned notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) was declared invalid and bad in law for non-compliance with Section 151A. The decision aligns with precedents from the Bombay HC and has been followed by other High Courts, reinforcing that notices under Section 148 must be issued by FAO to be valid. Consequently, the notice in question was quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
