On writ the Court held that in view of the Supreme Court judgement in UOI v. Ashis Agarwal (2022) 444 ITR 1(SC)  the notice under section 148 was required to be treated as notice under section 148A(b) and further proceedings were required to be drawn complying with the mandate of section 148A which was introduced after the amendment, effective from April 1, 2021. The order under section 148A(d), dated July 26, 2022, had clearly recorded that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, no scrutiny assessment could be made on the basis of show-cause notice and hence scrutiny assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer had become infructuous. Therefore, it was vividly clear that the assessment order under section 147 did not survive in the eye of law. Consequently, the subsequent demand notice which had been issued was also rendered ineffective and inoperative in law. What survived was an order passed under section 148A(d) on July 26, 2022 under the new regime of law after amendment in the Act with effect from April 1, 2021. Therefore, the appeal which had been filed by the assessee assailing the legality and validity of the scrutiny assessment order dated March 24, 2022 was rendered infructuous. The pre deposit amount, if any, made by the assessee while filing appeal against the order dated March 24, 2022 was required to be refunded forthwith to the assessee. The assessment order and the consequent demand notice, both dated March 24, 2022 were rendered ineffective and inoperative in law. The order dated July 26, 2022 passed under section 148A(d) for issue of notice under section 148 had not been interfered with. The assessee is given  liberty to seek such remedy as may be available under the law.