https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787481 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. en-us Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Mar 2026 08:30:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787481 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 24 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787481