On a writ petition challenging the notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, (2022) 444 ITR 1 (SC)  the order passed under section 148A(d) and the consequent notice issued under section 148 on the ground that it was issued beyond the period of limitation prescribed under section 149(1) for the assessment year 2013-2014,  dismissing the petition, the Court held that the notice under section 148 had been signed digitally on the system on March 31, 2021 and was, thus, placed on the portal, though the e-mail was despatched to the assessee on the morning of April 1, 2021 at 07:30: 47 a.m. and was delivered at 07:30: 48 a.m. The notice was also despatched to the assessee by speed post on April 1, 2021. The date of notice was vital for determining the rights of the parties and there could be no uncertainty regarding the date of issuance of notice. Therefore, it was necessary that the date of issue of notice be ascertained on completion of the precise steps for issuance of the notice. Where the notice was sent electronically, the date of dispatch of the e-mail was to be considered as the date of issue of the notice and the date of issue of notice would have to be taken as April 1, 2021. If there was no dispute that the date of issuance of notice was considered as April 1, 2021, then such notice was required to be treated as a notice under section 148A(b) in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court. The notice under section 148 is a jurisdictional notice and issuance of such notice is necessary for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction to reassess the income under section 147. If the notice under section 148 is found to be invalid, it would vitiate the proceedings commenced pursuant thereto. Merely because the parties had laboured under a misconception at the initial stage that the initial notice issued under section 148 was valid, that would not invalidate the subsequent actions taken by the Department. If the original notice dated March 31, 2021 was construed as a notice served on April 1, 2021, the assessee’s challenge to the notice and the order was rejected. (AY. 2013-14)