SSTA Logistics India Private Limited Vs ACIT (Karnataka High Court)
Summary: The Karnataka High Court allowed a batch of writ petitions challenging reassessment notices issued under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and quashed the impugned notices along with all consequential proceedings. The petitions concerned reassessment proceedings for AY 2008-09 and/or AY 2010-11, as applicable to the respective writ petitions.
The petitioners submitted that the reassessment notices had been issued consequent to the Justice M.B. Shah Enquiry Commission Report on illegal mining of iron and manganese. In support, they relied upon the coordinate Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, WP No.16256/2016 dated 17.10.2025, NE:2025:KHC:41997. The Court recorded that the coordinate Bench, while dealing with a similar factual situation, had considered the Bombay High Court judgment in Sesa Sterlite Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2019) 417 ITR 334, as well as the Allahabad High Court judgment in Mudra Exports Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Writ Tax No.628/2015 dated 05.04.2024.
The High Court further noticed that the judgment in Sesa Sterlite Limited had been challenged before the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Venture Real Estate and Another, Special Leave to Appeal No.4575/2020 dated 05.03.2025, and that the challenge was rejected. The relevance of the Sesa Sterlite ruling to reassessment based on the Shah Commission Report has also been recognised in subsequent proceedings; in Ashapura Minichem Limited Vs DCIT, the Mumbai ITAT applied the Bombay High Court ruling where reopening was entirely based on the Justice M.B. Shah Commission Report.
Significantly, counsel appearing for the Revenue in the present proceedings also submitted that the reassessment notices had been issued on the basis of the Shah Commission Report. In view of the petitioners’ reliance on the coordinate Bench decision, the authorities considered therein, and the Revenue’s own submission regarding the basis of reopening, the Karnataka High Court held that the relief sought in the writ petitions merited consideration.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned reassessment notices as well as all consequential proceedings. The decision therefore did not merely remit the objections for reconsideration or direct further verification; the reassessment notices and consequential proceedings themselves were quashed.
Cases Discussed
- M/s. Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, WP No.16256/2016 dated 17.10.2025, NE:2025:KHC:41997 — relied upon by the petitioners as a coordinate Bench decision concerning a similar factual situation.
- Sesa Sterlite Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2019) 417 ITR 334 (Bombay High Court) — the judgment records that this decision was considered by the coordinate Bench in Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Limited.
- Mudra Exports Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Writ Tax No.628/2015 dated 05.04.2024 (Allahabad High Court) — also recorded as having been considered by the coordinate Bench in Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Limited.
- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Venture Real Estate and Another, Special Leave to Appeal No.4575/2020 dated 05.03.2025 (Supreme Court) — the Karnataka High Court noted that the challenge to the Bombay High Court judgment in Sesa Sterlite Limited was rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
The present writ petitions are filed seeking for the following reliefs:
IN WP NO.102468/2016
(a) issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner’s case and after examining the legality and validity thereof quash the notice dated 08/10/2014 issued by Respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2010-2011 enclosed and marked as Annexure- “A” as one without jurisdiction and consequent order passed by the Respondent No. 2 disposing off the objections filed by the Petitioner vide respondent order No: ACIT/CIR-1/BGV/Scr/2015-16 dated 15/02/2016 Annexure – “K”;
(b) issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing Respondent No. 2 to forthwith withdraw and cancel the notice dated 08/10/2014 enclosed as Annexure “A” issued by Respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2010-2011 together with the order of Respondent No. 2 dated 15/02/2016 dealing with the Petitioner’s objections enclosed as Annexure – “K”;
(c) issue a Writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing Respondent No. 2 to permanently refrain from giving effect to and/or proceeding further by way of reassessment or otherwise in any manner in respect of the notice dated 08/10/2014 enclosed as Annexure “A” issued by Respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2010-2011 together with the order of Respondent No. 2 dated 15/02/2016 dealing with the Petitioner’s objections enclosed as Annexure “K”:
(d) Declare that the Respondent No.1 erred in law in invoking the provisions of section 148 read with section 147 of the Act on mere surmise, conjunctures and suspicion which resulted in reasons to suspect without having any reasons to believe as contemplated under the provisions of section 147 of the Act.
(e) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.”
IN WP NO.102737/2016
(a) issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner’s case and after examining the legality and validity thereof quash and set aside the notice dated 08/04/2015 PAN NO.AAACU9883C issued by Respondent No.1 under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 enclosed and marked as Annexure-“A” as one without jurisdiction and consequent order passed by the Respondent No. 1 disposing off the objections filed by the Petitioner vide respondent order dated 18/02/2016 Annexure – “G”;
(b) issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing Respondent No. 1 to forthwith withdraw and cancel the notice dated 08/04/2015 PAN NO. AAACU9883C enclosed as Annexure – “A” issued by Respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 together with the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 22/02/2016, F.N.ACIT/CIR-1/BGV/Scr/2015-16 dealing with the Petitioner’s objections enclosed as Annexure – “H”;
(c) issue a Writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing Respondent No. 1 to permanently refrain from giving effect to and/or proceeding further by way of reassessment or otherwise in any manner in respect of the notice dated 08/04/2015 PAN NO. AAACU9883C, enclosed as Annexure “A” issued by Respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2010-11 together with the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 22/02/2016 dealing with the Petitioner’s objections enclosed as Annexure – “H”; F.NO.ACIT/CIR-1/BGV/Scr/2015-16.
(d) Declare that the Respondent erred in law in invoking the provisions of section 148 read with section 147 of the Act on mere surmise, conjunctures and suspicion which resulted in reasons to suspect without having any reasons to believe as contemplated under the provisions of section 147 of the Act.
(e) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.
IN WP NO.102738/2016
(a) issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the Petitioner’s case and after examining the legality and validity thereof quash and set aside the notice dated 08/10/2014 Pan. AADCP 6658D, issued by Respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2008-2009 enclosed and marked as Annexure- “A” as one without jurisdiction and consequent order passed by the Respondent No. 1 disposing off the objections filed by the Petitioner vide respondent order dated 18/02/2016 Annexure – “G”;
(b) issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing Respondent No.1 to forthwith withdraw and cancel the notice dated 08/10/2014 Pan. No. AADCP 6658D enclosed as Annexure “A” issued by Respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2008-2009 together with the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 22/02/2016 F.NO. ACIT/CIR-1/BGV/Scr/2015-16 dealing with the Petitioner’s objections enclosed as Annexure – “H”;
(c) issue a Writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of Prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ordering and directing Respondent No. 1 to permanently refrain from giving effect to and/or proceeding further by way of reassessment or otherwise in any manner in respect of the notice dated 08/10/2014 Pan. AADCP 6658D enclosed as Annexure “A” issued by Respondent No. 1 under section 148 of the Act to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 together with the order of Respondent No. 1 dated 22/02/2016 dealing with the Petitioner’s objections enclosed as Annexure – “H”; NO. F.NO. ACIT/CIR-1/BGV/Scr/2015-16
(d) Declare that the Respondent erred in law in invoking the provisions of section 148 read with section 147 of the Act on mere surmise, conjunctures and suspicion which resulted in reasons to suspect without having any reasons to believe as contemplated under the provisions of section 147 of the Act.
(e) And pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.
IN WP NO.102848/2016
(a) issue a Writ of Certiorari or a direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari quashing the notice issued by the Respondent dated 30.09.2014 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11 (ANNEXURES-‘B’ & ‘B-1’);
()b) issue a Writ of Mandamus or a direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent not to proceed further in pursuance of the order dated 07.03.2016 in file F.No. ACIT/CIR-1/BGV/Scr/2015-16 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11 (ΑΝNEXURE-‘F’);
(c) pass such other order, direction or writ as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, and
(d) direct the Respondents to award the costs of this Writ Petition002E
2. The present writ petitions call in question reassessment notices that have been issued to the petitioners.
3. It is the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that the reassessment notices have been issued consequent to the Justice M.B Shah Enquiry Commission Report on illegal mining of Iron and Manganese. That considering a similar fact situation, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. Deccan Mining Syndicate Private Limited Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax1 , considered a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Sterlite Limited Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax2 , as well as the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Mudra Exports Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax3 .
4. It is further noticed that the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Sterlite Limited (supra) was challenged before the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Venture Real Estate and Another4 , which challenge was rejected.
5. Learned counsel for respondents also submit that the reassessment notices have been issued based on the Shah Commission Report.
6. In view of the aforementioned, the relief sought for in the present petitions, merits consideration. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petitions are allowed.
ii) The impugned reassessment notices dated 08.10.2014 (Annexure-A in WP Nos.102468/2016, 102737/2016, 102738/2016 and Annexures-B and B1 in the WP No.102848/2016) as well as all consequential proceedings stand quashed.
Notes:
1 WP No.16256/2016 dated 17.10.2025, NE:2025: KHC:41997
2 (2019) 417 ITR 334
3 Writ Tax No.628/2015 dated 05.04.2024
4 Special Leave to Appeal No.4575/2020 dated 05.03.2025
