Ayush Negi v. Income Tax Officer & Ors

1 ( 2025:HHC:26233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 5203 of 2024 Decided on: 05.08.2025 ______________________________________________________________ Ayush Negi ....Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer & Ors. …Respondents _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the petitioner : Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. IshanKashyap, Advocates, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No. 4. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:­ “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issuewrit in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction, thereby quashing/setting asidethe impugned notice under Section 148 dated26.03.2024, Annexure P­2, being illegal, withoutjurisdiction, against the procedure and further basedon the illegal sanction/approval under Section 151 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/actionsconsequent thereto.” 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:26233 2.The subject matter of the challenge in thispetition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety ofimpugned notice under Section 148, dated 26.03.2024(Annexure P­2) is already under consideration before theHon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (c) No.17040/2024, titled as The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr.Reddy LaboratoriesLtd. with connected matters. 3. Since the issue involved in this petition isalready pending consideration before the Hon’ble SupremeCourt, therefore, keeping in view the judicial discipline, werefrain ourselves from giving our opinion with respect toimpugned notice under Section 148, dated 26.03.2024(Annexure P­2), as assailed in this petition. We direct thatthe present petition shall be governed by the judgmentpassed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decisionthereto, shall be binding on this case also. 4. The continuity of proceedings before thecompetent authority, in view of the pendency of the matterbefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court is bound to lead to The continuity of proceedings before the 3 ( 2025:HHC:26233 multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, we deem it appropriateto stay such proceedings till the time issue is finallydecided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Orderedaccordingly. 5. The petition is disposed of in above terms, soalso the pending application(s), if any. ( Vivek Singh Thakur )Judge August 05, 2025(raman) ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge