Nabco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and others (Allahabad High Court)

By CA Nikhil Gupta · Judgment date: 2022-08-03 · Allahabad High Court

High CourtQuashed / set asidePUBLISH_READY

Important disclaimer

Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.

Source status: Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; the exact issuing-court primary record remains pending. Open packaged judgment PDF. This indexed page retains explicit official-source and later-history disclosures for reliance checks.

Case in 2 minutes

In this case the assessee had submitted a reply to the notice under clause (b) of Section of Section 148A. However, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) had been passed on the ground that no reply has been submitted. The application for rectification of the mistake submitted by the petitioner u/s 154 had been rejected on the ground that no reply was received. The revenue filed an affidavit wherein it was mentioned That since the reply dated 29.03.2022 of the assessee was not reflecting in the case history/notings maintained digitally on the ITBA Portal of the petitioner assessee as accessed by the AO on the…

Result: Quashed / set aside. The controlling text is the reasoning and operative order in the packaged judgment, not this editorial summary.

Case snapshot

Court / TribunalAllahabad High Court

Case numberWrit Tax No. 997 of 2022

Decision date2022-08-03

Assessment yearNot applicable / not stated

Coramthe appropriate bench on 02.08.2022. As an interim measure, it is provided that the impugned notice under Section 148 and the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act, 1961, shall be kept in abeyance till the next fixed.

OutcomeQuashed / set aside

Sections / provisions: 148A

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

In this case the assessee had submitted a reply to the notice under clause (b) of Section of Section 148A. However, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) had been passed on the ground that no reply has been submitted. The application for rectification of the mistake submitted by the petitioner u/s 154 had been rejected on the ground that no reply was received. The revenue filed an affidavit wherein it was mentioned That since the reply dated 29.03.2022 of the assessee was not reflecting in the case history/notings maintained digitally on the ITBA Portal of the petitioner assessee as accessed by the AO on the…
What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

JUDGMENT-GROUNDED CASE RECORD

Material facts and procedural background

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 997 of 2022 Petitioner :- Nabco Products Private Limited Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhinav Mehrotra, Satya Vrata Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Gaurav Mahajan

1. Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3.

“26.07.2022 Heard Sri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sudarshan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: "a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the IMPUGNED ORDER Dt. 30.03.2022 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Respondent No.2; b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the IMPUGNED ORDER Dt. 06.06.2022 passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Respondent No.2; c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the IMPUGNED Notice Dt. 30.03.2022 u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Respondent No.2;"

Prima facie, from perusal of Annexure-3 to the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has submitted a reply to the notice under clause (b) of Section of Section 148A of the Act, 1961 dated 22.03.2022. The reply was submitted on 29.03.2022. However, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) has been passed on the ground that no reply has been submitted. The application for rectification of the mistake submitted by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Act, 1961 has been rejected on the ground that no reply was received. The petitioner has filed a copy of screen-shot of uploading his reply dated 29.03.2022, which appears at page 25 of the writ petition. Thus, the impugned order passed by the respondents, prima facie appears to be erroneous. Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 prays for and is granted a week's time to file short counter affidavit in which the respondents shall specifically state as to whether petitioner has submitted reply dated 29.03.2022 and whether it is available on the portal. Put up as a fresh case before the appropriate bench on 02.08.2022. As an interim measure, it is provided that the impugned notice under Section 148…

02.08.2022 Heard Shri Abhinav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. An order under Section 148-A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been passed by the respondent no.2, prima facie, without consideration to the reply dated 29.03.2022 filed by the petitioner and the assessee's application under Section 154 of the Act, 1961 has also been rejected in the same manner. Despite order of the Court dated 26.07.2022, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 are not filing even short counter affidavit. Therefore, we direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to file short counter affidavit by tomorrow, failing which both the respondents shall remain personally present before this Court on 03.08.2022 and shall show cause. Put up as a fresh case before the appropriate Bench tomorrow, i.e., on 03.08.2022 at 10:00 a.m.”

Appellant / assessee submissions

Revenue / respondent submissions

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

The reasoning is integrated into the packaged record. Read it with the facts, statutory text and operative directions; this editorial article does not invent missing reasons.

Operative decision and relief

9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, with cost of Rs.50,000/- which the respondents shall pay to the petitioner within two weeks by an account payee bank draft or RTGS.

Official source and later-history control

Primary record: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_SEARCH_PENDING

Later-history status: REVIEW_APPEAL_SLP_CHECK_PENDING

High Court review, intra-court appeal where applicable, and Supreme Court SLP/appeal history remain to be closed.

Release decision: Published with a sanitized local judgment copy and explicit source disclosure; official-primary retrieval and later-history surveillance remain open. Checked 2026-08-11; page is published as index,follow with these limitations disclosed.

FININ2MIN ANALYSIS

Ratio and legal principle

The packaged judgment addresses In this case the assessee had submitted a reply to the notice under clause (b) of Section of Section 148A. However, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) had been passed on the ground that no reply has been submitted. The application for rectification of the mistake submitted by the petitioner u/s 154 had been rejected on the ground that no reply was received. The revenue filed an affidavit wherein it was mentioned That since the reply dated 29.03.2022 of the assessee was not reflecting in the case history/notings maintained digitally on the ITBA Portal of the petitioner assessee as accessed by the AO on the…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with in this case the assessee had submitted a reply to the notice under clause (b) of section of section 148a. however, the impugned order under section 148a(d) had been passed on the ground that no reply has been submitted. the application for rectification of the mistake submitted by the petitioner u/s 154 had been rejected on the ground that no reply was received. the revenue filed an affidavit wherein it was mentioned that since the reply dated 29.03.2022 of the assessee was not reflecting in the case history/notings maintained digitally on the itba portal of the petitioner assessee as accessed by the ao on the… Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Can I rely on this judgment?

Authority level	High Court
Source integrity	Sanitized readable full judgment copy packaged; issuing-court primary pending
Repository release	PUBLISH_READY
Reliance rule	Verify current history and cite the judgment's narrow proposition, not the editorial headnote.

Does this case match your facts?

Stronger match when

The same primary issue is raised.
The same statutory version and jurisdiction apply.
The procedural stage and burden of proof are comparable.
The material documentary record is substantially similar.

Weaker / distinguishable when

A later higher-court ruling changes the position.
The statutory provision or relevant period differs.
The evidence or procedural chronology is materially different.
A defect decisive here was cured in the user's case.

Questions this judgment answers

What was the main dispute in Nabco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI and others (Allahabad High Court)?

Which facts matter most?

What did the Allahabad High Court decide?

9. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above, with cost of Rs.50,000/- which the respondents shall pay to the petitioner within two weeks by an account payee bank draft or RTGS.

What legal principle can be taken from the judgment?

The packaged judgment addresses In this case the assessee had submitted a reply to the notice under clause (b) of Section of Section 148A. However, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) had been passed on the ground that no reply has been submitted. The application for rectification of the mistake submitted by the petitioner u/s 154 had been rejected on the ground that no reply was received. The revenue filed an affidavit wherein it was mentioned That since the reply dated 29.03.2022 of the assessee was not reflecting in the case history/notings maintained digitally on the ITBA Portal of the petitioner assessee as accessed by the AO on the…. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions. Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Which provisions should be checked?

148A

When is the case most useful?

When the user's facts raise the same issue - In this case the assessee had submitted a reply to the notice under clause (b) of Section of Section 148A. However, the impugned order under Section 148A(d) had been passed on the ground that no reply has been submitted. The application for rectification of the mistake submitted by the petitioner u/s 154 had been rejected on the ground that no reply was received. The revenue filed an affidavit wherein it was mentioned That since the reply dated 29.03.2022 of the assessee was not reflecting in the case history/notings maintained digitally on the ITBA Portal of the petitioner assessee as accessed by the AO on the… - at a comparable procedural stage and under the same statutory version.

What could distinguish the case?

Different evidence, jurisdiction, statutory period, procedural chronology, or later controlling authority can materially change the result.

Can it be cited without another current-law check?

No. Read the packaged judgment and verify current appellate/review/SLP history, statutory amendments and jurisdiction before citation or advice.