No Error in Issuing a Separate Notice to Proprietorship Firm by Superintendent of Rohtak Commissionerate Where Firm Was Situated | HC

Case Details: Shashank Garg v. Proper Officer cum Additional Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) - [2024] 163 taxmann.com 66 (Punjab & Haryana)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Sanjeev Prakash Sharma & Mrs Sudeepti Sharma, jj.
• Alok Mittal, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel, Ms Anju Bansal & Ms Shivani Sahni, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was an individual who received show cause notice from the Commissionerate at Panchkula. Thereafter, a separate notice was issued in name of proprietorship concern by Superintendent Commissionerate at Rohtak. It filed writ petition against the notice and contended that once a notice was issued to him, a separate notice could not have been issued in name of proprietorship concern.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the petitioner may be a resident of area governed under jurisdiction of Commissionerate at Panchkula, but the proprietorship firm was situated at Jind, where jurisdiction of Rohtak Commissionerate would lie. Therefore, it could not be held that Commissionerate at Rohtak was not having jurisdiction.

Thus, the Court held that there was no reason to interfere with show cause notice and appeal of assessee was to be dismissed. The Court also directed the petitioner to file appropriate reply to the show cause notice and contest the same.