'[(2023)[156 ][Taxmann.com ][178 ][(T'elangana v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax & Others2, Gauhati High Courr In The Case Of Ram Narayan Sah Vs. Union Of

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNETWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 17627 0F 202s Between: Nitin Enlerprises, vipin Ramesh Gulabani, S/o: Ramesh Gulabani, aged 42vears, occ. Business oartner_in p.iitiori"i iiir'-5-li-sssrs, Ravi NiravamGround Ftoor, Syed Jun! t_ane rroofiEii"i-, nvl"l-rori _500095.Ground Ftoor, Syed Jun! t_ane rroofiEii"i-, nvl"l-rori _500095. ...PETITIONER AND 1lncome{ax Officer Ward - 5(i ), Hyderabad lT Tower, AC Guards, MasabTank, Hyderabad-S00004Tank, Hyderabad-S00004 2Pr Commissioner of lncome Tax 4, Hyderabad, Bth floor, D_Block, lncome TaxTowers, 1 0-2-3, AC Guards, HyOerbOJrO.-Towers, 1 0-2-3, AC Guards, HyOerbOJrO.- 3Central Board of Direct Tax Through the Ministry of Finance, Department ofRevenue, North Block, New Delhi l1 10001 . [-- ]' [- ' ][']Revenue, North Block, New Delhi l1 10001 . [-- ]' [- ' ]['] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particurarry one in thepleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particurarry one in thenature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the Notice u/s. 14g of the rncome Tax Actdated 28.03.2025 lor A,y. 2021-22 vide DtN No. trBA/AST/s148t2o24-25/1075205448(1) issued by the JAo ('r st Respondent) instead of FAo, as void,25/1075205448(1) issued by the JAo ('r st Respondent) instead of FAo, as void,illegal, and contrary to the provisions of rncome Tax Act and contrary to thePrinciples of Natural Justice. \ lA NO: [1][oF ][2025] PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit [filed in ][support ][of ][the ][writ ][petition, ][the ][High ][court ][may be pleased ][to]stay all [further proceedings pursuant ][to the ][Notice ][u/s ][148 of ][the ][lncome Tax ][Act]dated28.03.2025forA.Y.2021-22videDlNNo.ITBA/AST/S,14812024-2511O75205448('1 ) [issued ][bv ][the ] [('1st ][Respondent) instead ][of ][FAO'] Counsel for [the Petitioner: ][MS' ] [PAWAR' ] [with]SRI DUNDU Counsel [for the Respondents: ] [K' ][SUDHAKAR EDDY' SC ] TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made [the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE SRTJUSTICE P.SAM KOSIIYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PBTITION No.17627 of 2025 ORDBR; iper Hon'ble Sri Ju.stice Narsing Rao Narulikonda) Heard Ms.Rutuja pawar, along with Mr.Dundu Sashank Manmohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.SudhakarReddy, learned Senior Standing counser for the Income TaxDepartment appearing for the respondents. perused the record.2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged ro the notices which were issued under Section I4gAand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l (for short ,the Act,) or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section I4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section I4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance\.Ac r, ZO2l w.e-f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section I4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section I4g ofthe Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance\.Ac r, ZO2l w.e-f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section [1484. ][of ][the ][Act ][as ][also under ][Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought [to ][have ][also ][been issued ][and ][proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner.4. The contention [ol ][the ][petitioner ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]proceedings [being ][in ][violation ][of ][the ][Finance ][Act' ][2021 ][i'e'' ][the]impugned [uotices under Section ][l48A ][and Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act]not being [issued ][in ][a laceless ][manner' ][have already ][been ][dealt ][with]and decided [by ][this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] RAVINDRA [vs' ] [decided]on 14.09.2023 [rvhereby ][a ][batch ][of ][w'rit petitions wete allowed ][and]the proceedings [initiated ][under ][Section ][l48A ][as ][also ][under ][Section]l48oftheActwerehetdtobebadwithconsequentialreliefsontheof [it being in ][violation ][of the provisions ][of ][Section ][15 I ] [of]ground the Act [read ][with ][Notitication ][1812022 ][dated ][29'03 ][2022' ][The ][said]judgment passed [by ][this Court ][has ][also been ][subsequently ][followed]in a large [number ][of writ ][petitions ][which ][were ][allowed ][on ][similar]terms. '[(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(T'elangana)]] 5. Down the line, we find that the same the line, we find that the same line, we find that the same that the same the same same issue has also beenalso beenbeendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courl in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Courr in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VBNKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOMB TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circre, High court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT.Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKIIBHAI Down the line, we find that the same the line, we find that the same line, we find that the same that the same the same same issue has also beenalso beenbeen 'z [yzoz+1464 ][rtR ][430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) 156 raxmann.com 478 (Gauhari)l^ 1Q024) 165 raxmann.com I l5 (punjab & Haryana)l't2024\l 67 raxmann.com 4tI (Telangana)l" 12024) [taxrnam.com ]679 (Bornbay)l ' [2024) 165 taxmann.com I l3 (Himachai pradesh)] DAHYABHAI [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD 3(3)(5)8, [Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR [vs. ][UNION OF INDIAe' ][Rajasthan ][High Courl ][in]the case of [vs' ] OFFICER&ANOTHERandbatchofwritpetitions|owhichstood decided [on ][19 ]['03 ]['2024' ][Similar views ][have also ][been ][taken]the Division [Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR [vs' ] [& ] 1690 [of ][2023). ][dccided on25'Oe'2024'](M.A.T ' [2024) 165 taxmann.com I l3 (Himachai pradesh)] DAHYABHAI [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD 3(3)(5)8, [Jharkand ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR [vs. ][UNION OF INDIAe' ][Rajasthan ][High Courl ][in]the case of [vs' ] OFFICER&ANOTHERandbatchofwritpetitions|owhichstood decided [on ][19 ]['03 ]['2024' ][Similar views ][have also ][been ][taken]the Division [Bench ][of ][Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]by GIRDHAR [vs' ] [& ] 1690 [of ][2023). ][dccided on25'Oe'2024'](M.A.T 6.Eventhoughthesameissuehavingbeendecidedbyalargenumber of [High ][Courts, we ][are ][still ][confronted ][with ][targe ][filing ][of]identical [matters ][on ][daily ][basis ][ranging ][between ][5 ][to ][10 ][writ]That [upon ][the ][instructions ][being ][sought ][fiom ][the]petitions. Depaltment, [they ][have ][been ][taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of [the ][Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Hexaware]Technologies Ltd., [(2 ][supra) ][as ][also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by this [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Redtly] 12024 sCC online Guj 4012'2025 [Online ][Jhar28'7]' o 12023 RJ- J D : 49 84-DB l (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLp No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon,ble Supremecourt and the Hon'bre supreme court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also fiieJ;Girsoui;"i1h-. '-^-:-^.-same issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the learned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it.Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Courl thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and, more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Acr by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions \ by all the major High Courts [in ][India]are continuously stillinitiating [proceedings ][under ][Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating proceedings under Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention to the amendments [brought ][into ][the Income ][Tax Act]pursuant to the Finance Act,2020 [as ]also [the Finance ][Acl202l]9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this [writ ][petition ][be]disposed of in the teeth of the decision [rendered ][by ][this ][Court ][in]the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l [supra), ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel for the Income [Tax ][Department contends ][that ][those ][would]unnecessarily burden the Income Tax [Department ][where ][they]would be required to file equal number of SLPs [before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme Court and it [would be ][further ][burdening ][the]exchequer of the Union of India. It [was also ][the contention ][of ][the]leamed Standing Counsel that no [prejudice ][would ][be ][caused ][to ][the]interest of the petitioners in case if [this ][writ ][petition ][is kept pending]till the finalization of the SLPs [pending ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court and the fact that [the ][petitioner is ][already enjoying]the benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, [on ][the ]earlier [query]of this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropr)ate instructions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section I4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section t4g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed Standingcounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the rever of cBDTas any such steps would have to,be taken pan India and cannot belimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts.10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concerned are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l51A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have be:en already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Couft in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is alsri surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserwing the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners\ insofar as the liberty [which ][was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue for]fresh [proceedings ][strictly ][in ][accordance ][with ][the amended]initiating provisions of the Act, [as amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]the Finance Act,202l. [The petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled to]challenge or raise the [other ][legal ][objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. [The ][Department ][has made ][no ][endeavour ][in]the said [liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]availing contrary, they have [been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Courl as well as [many other ][High ][Courls ][already ][held ][to ][be]bad. 1i. [t appears that [because ][of the ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that ][this ][I{igh]Court had [glanted permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time [measure ][in ][a ][laceless manner, ][the]Income Tax l)epartment [wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same by]protracting these proceedings [which ][would ][enable them ][to ][tneet the]limitation that would otherwise [come ][in ][the ][way. ][Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is kept [pending ][for ][a ][considerable ][long period ][of ][time]and finally at a later stage if [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][confirms]the decision taken by this High Court as [also ]by [the ][other High]Courls in which the SLPs are still pending, the [Income ][Tax]a'( Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficiar to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindro Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court,s decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move [o buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal\! position. Such conduct ralses serlousquestions about theadministrative efficiency and the [respect ]for [j ][udiciat]pronouncements, parlicularly when this Courl has already [provided]a balanced approach by [preserwing ]both the Revenue's rights [and]assesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax [Department ][itself ][and]should have found out via media in ensuring [that ][proceedings]under Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in [a]faceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred [(1200) ]odd SLPs which it is already seized of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the [authorities intend ][to]initiate proceedings under Sections 148-A [and ][148, ][other ]than [in ][a]faceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shatl initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all \.i \ has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by wayof a policy decision and that too at theIevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. otherwise has to be by wayof a policy decision and that too at theIevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itsTax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthc long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and agam on daily basis.under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthc long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and agam on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of rhematter before the Hon,ble spite of rhematter before the Hon,ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon,ble Supreme Co.ur1 which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any inter.im protection to themany occasions, the Hon,ble Supreme Co.ur1 which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any inter.im protection to theIncome Tax Departmeryet, the authorities concemed at theat theState level are not rea(y to accept the verdict rea(y to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of differeni of High Courts of differeni States on the same issue; and to maketliings further tliings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections l4g_A andshowingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections l4g_A and 148 through [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have [been ][onlf ][in ][the ][faceless ][manner] ASSISTANT14. In [the ][case ][of ] [vs']COMMISSIONER, [TAXIr' ][on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable[on ][the ][parl ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Departmsnl ][in ][not]foltowing [an ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][adjudicating ][authority only ][on ][the]ground [that the ][appeals ][are pending' ][the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High [Court ][of ][Bombay ][held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:] 148 through [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have [been ][onlf ][in ][the ][faceless ][manner] ASSISTANT14. In [the ][case ][of ] [vs']COMMISSIONER, [TAXIr' ][on ][an issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable[on ][the ][parl ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Departmsnl ][in ][not]foltowing [an ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][adjudicating ][authority only ][on ][the]ground [that the ][appeals ][are pending' ][the ][Division ][Bench ][of ][the]High [Court ][of ][Bombay ][held ][at ][paragraph ][No'25 ][as ][under' ][viz'' ][:] '25. Mr [Paridwalla ][has ][rightly drawn ][out ][attention ][to ][the]decision [of this ][Court in ][Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs' ][Smt']Godavaridevi [Sarafl2 ][as ][also ][the ][recent decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinateBenchofthiscourtinSampFurniture(P)Ltd.v.lTo13ofwhichoneofuS(JUSticeG-S'Kulkarni)Wasamember'Whereinthe [Court ][categorically observed ][that ][the ][Revenue ][having ][not]"accepted" [the judgment of the High Court would ][not ][mean that till]the [same is set aside in a manner known ][to law' ][it ][would ][loose ][its]binding [force. ][Referring ][to ][the decision of the Supreme Court ][in]Union [of ][lndia ][vs' ][Kamlakshi Finance ][Corporation ][Ltd't4' ][the]Court observed [that ][the ][approach ][of ][the ][officials ][of ][Revenue of]treating [decisions being "not ][acceptable" ][was ][criticized ][by ][the]Supreme [Court. ][, ][ln ][such ][decision' following ][are ][the ][relevant]observations [made by the Supreme Court] " 11zozs1I70 [taxmann.corn 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' Iiszs1 [113 ] [589 (BombaY)] " lzozql [l(r5 taxmann.conr ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)]'o [telzl [taxmann.com ][16/55 ] [433 ][(SC) ]t/'o [telzl [taxmann.com ][16/55 ] [433 ][(SC) ]t/ - I I " 11zozs1I70 [taxmann.corn 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' Iiszs1 [113 ] [589 (BombaY)] " lzozql [l(r5 taxmann.conr ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)]'o [telzl [taxmann.com ][16/55 ] [433 ][(SC) ]t/'o [telzl [taxmann.com ][16/55 ] [433 ][(SC) ]t/ - I I "6. Sri Reddy is pertright in saying that theofficers were no, ,"n'0" passing the ,arrnrt"t"o by any mara fides ingenuinety fett that the ll . [o-"rs ][rhey ][perhaps]of the assessee was notof the assessee was nottenabre and ,nrr, ,, n"'''' was accepted' the Revenue,nrr, ,, n"'''' was accepted' the Revenuewould suffer. But what *"00, overlooks is that weoverlooks is that weare not concerned n,t'' *"n the co'ectness otherwise of their or"ot'u or of any factuarmarafides but with the ,""'"'on otherwise of their or"ot'u or of any factuarmarafides but with the ,""'"'on in rheir concrus,"" rr;:::::',T :ffnJffi.:l;regard to the same isscwhich were placed beforethem, one ot the corect,' the rrbunar *" r"";:ilT;; :::Jh:H;Jcriticized this conduct of the Assistant Coffu"tors"rnOthe harassment to the aslor these orricers ro ;;""';:i"[":r:,]:J:,,:;cannot authorities higher be too ,un"runtt' to themthe apperate hierarchy. rtutmost importance ,nr,' [":on::l'd. ]In [that ][it ][is ][of]them, one ot the corect,' the rrbunar *" r"";:ilT;; :::Jh:H;Jcriticized this conduct of the Assistant Coffu"tors"rnOthe harassment to the aslor these orricers ro ;;""';:i"[":r:,]:J:,,:;cannot authorities higher be too ,un"runtt' to themthe apperate hierarchy. rtutmost importance ,nr,' [":on::l'd. ]In [that ][it ][is ][of]disposing of thequasuud,ciar issues before bound by the oecisions or'Tl;:ff: ffi::The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andquasuud,ciar issues before bound by the oecisions or'Tl;:ff: ffi::The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the .qssistantCollectors and the Appeliate Coliectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. fn" prin"ipf"" ofjudicial discipline require thathe orders of the higherappelate authorities shourd oy tne suooro na;il;;;;"j";:T::ffTl::Iunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. fn" prin"ipf"" ofjudicial discipline require thathe orders of the higherappelate authorities shourd oy tne suooro na;il;;;;"j";:T::ffTl::Iorder of the appellate authority is not ,,acceptable,, the department _ in rtself an objectionable phrase _toappellate authority is not ,,acceptable,, the department _ in rtself an objectionable phrase _toand is the subject matter of aground for nor foltowing ,, ;"Tfi:'::::ffi::been suspended been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, [the ][result ][will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to assesses [and ][chaos ][in ][administration]of tax laws. 12. We have dealt [with this ][aspect ][at ][some ][length,]because it has been [suggested ][by ][the ][learned]Additionat Solicitor General [that the ][observations]made by the High Court, [have been harsh ][on ][the]officers. lt is clear that the [observations ][of the ][High]Court, seemingly [vehement, ][and ][apparently]unpalatable to the [Revenue, are ][only ][intended ][to ][curb]a tendency in revenue [matters ][which, ][if ][allowed ][to]become wrdespread, [could result ][in ][considerable]harassment to the assesses-public [without ][any ][benefit]to the Revenue. We [would ][like ][to ][say ][that ][the]department should take [these ][observations ][in ][the]proper spirit. The observations of the [High ][Court]should be kept [rn ][mind ][in ][future and the utmost regard]should be [paid ][by ]the [adjudicating authorities and ][the]appellate authorities to [the ][requirements ][of ][judicial]discipline and the [need ][for ][giving effect ][to the ][orders]of the higher appellate [authorities ][which ][are ][binding]on them." 15. What is worrying [this ][Bench ][more ][is ][the ][fact ][that ][an]endeavour is being made [whole heartedly to ][ensure ][not ][to ][generate]further litigation on [issues ][which ][have ][been ][laid ][to ][rest ][by ][a ][large]number of High Courts all of [whom ][have ][taken a ][consistent ][stand]that the action of the Incotne Tax [Department being ][violative of ][the] Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ trite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction observation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanola Ravindra terms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanola Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDeparlment and which the outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDeparlment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,brebefore the Hon,breSupreme Courl 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Elench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarery covered by the decision of this courland which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed ofas a covered matter. 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,37 [and38 ][ofthe ][order ][which' ][for ][ready ][reference' ][is ][reproduced]hereunder: 36. For [all ][the ][aforesaid reasons' ][the ][impugned notices]issued and [lhe ][proceedings ][drawn by ][the ][respondent-]Department [is ][neither ][tenable' ][nor ][sustainable']The notices [so ][issued ][and the ][procedure ][adopted ][being]per se illegal, [deserves ][to ][be ][and ][are ][accordingly ][set]aside/quashed [As ][a ][consequence' ][all ][the ][impugned]orders [getting quashed, ][the ][consequential orders passed]the [respondent-Department pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]by issued [under ][Section ][147 ][and ][148 ][would ][also ][get]quashed and [it is ][ordered ][accordingly The ][reason ][we]are [quashing ][the ][consequential order is on ][the ][principles]that when [the ][initiation ][of ][the ][proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally [wrong, ][the ][subsequent ][orders ][also ][gets]nullified [automaticallY'] 37. The [preliminary ][objection ][raised ][by the ][petitioner ][is]sustained [and all these ][writ ][petitions stands allowed ][on]Since the [imPugned notices]this [very ].jurisdictional [issue]and orders [are ][getting]quashed on [the ]Point [of]we [are not ][inclined ][to ][proceed ][further ][and]jurisdiction, decide [the ][other ][issues ][raised ][by the ][petitioner ][which]stands [reserved ][to ][be ][raised ][and ][contended ][in ][an]approPriate Proceedings' 38. [Since ][the ][Hon'ble Supreme Court ][had' ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish [Agarwal' ][supra, ][as ][a ][one-time ][measure]exercising [the ][powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution [of ][lndia, permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the [substituted ][provisions' ][and ][this Court ][allowing]the petitions [only ][on the ][procedural ][ftaw' ][thf ][r1'ght] .F conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 38. [Since ][the ][Hon'ble Supreme Court ][had' ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish [Agarwal' ][supra, ][as ][a ][one-time ][measure]exercising [the ][powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution [of ][lndia, permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the [substituted ][provisions' ][and ][this Court ][allowing]the petitions [only ][on the ][procedural ][ftaw' ][thf ][r1'ght] .F conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18' we would onry further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanukola Ravindrt Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income 1'ax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanokala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition .in the light of the decision of the Hon,ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLp on the verrr same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowedlnfavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge_under Sections 148-A and 14g stands set aside/quashed. )) The consequential [orders' ][if ][any' ][also ][stand ][set ][aside/quashed in]similar [terms ][as ][have ][been passed ][by this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of] KankanalaRavindraReddy(|supra).Thereshallbenoorderas to costs. Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions pending' ][if ][any' ][shall] stand [closed.] SDSS +hY',eH# \ /ITRUE SECTION To, 1. 2. 4 5ttT*o [CoP'"']ttT*o [CoP'"']TJ.4.TKTK f, [.>....]..' t'f r.;i,tr HIGH COURT DATED:2410612025 ORDER WP.No.17627 [ot ][2025] Rf,4at()ft:t'-)16 sEP fl6 i:'+*a_,-a ALLOWING WITHOUT