Ba Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1G61, And Consequenfly Set Aside The Same In Theinterests Of Justiceia No:10F 2024Interests Of Justiceia No:10F 2024 v. A. Siva Kartikeyasrt. A. V. A. Siva Kartikeya

HIGH COURT AT HYDERABADlsPeciai [oiiginil ] [urisdiction)] MONDAY .. ,THE - TWd THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P.SAIil ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTid.iNARSING ] WRIT PETITION [NO: ][361][ 13][ oF ][2024] Between: It/r. Yadaqiri [Goud ][Bandi, ][S/o ][Mr' ] [Jangaiah' ][aged,61 ][vears' ][Occ Business']Rto.7- 93l12,Bandi [satnavl ][N?g'"t ][i6i""n'' ][FbeLadiguda' ][Boduppal' ][Ranga]Oisttl"t [- ][500 ][098' Telangana]heOdy ...PETITIONER AND 1. Assessment [Unit, lncome ][Tax ][Department' National e- Assessment ][Center']New Dethi, [noo. ruI]ib"r,'I"d-ir["r, ][r- ][Ramp' Jawaharlal ][Nehru Stadium']New Dethi, [noo. ruI]ib"r,'I"d-ir["r, ][r- ][Ramp' Jawaharlal ][Nehru Stadium'] , ' +fryR:X};'.+:-oootoicer, Gr;;;, N,i;.io tant<, Hvderabad [ward rsir-). ]- 500 004' [fry-aelapad' lncome ][Telanoana'][rax ][rowers' ] 3 The Principrr [corntilillil?"6i ][rnii;; ][iax ][- ][4-' ][Hvderabad' ][lncome ][rax]Towers, nc [Cuaros' irdi"aola-nt<' ][UyAerabad ][- 500 004' Telangana]3 The Principrr [corntilillil?"6i ][rnii;; ][iax ][- ][4-' ][Hvderabad' ][lncome ][rax]Towers, nc [Cuaros' irdi"aola-nt<' ][UyAerabad ][- 500 004' Telangana] ...RESPONDENTS Petition [under ][Article ][226 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High ][Court may ][be]preased to issue [a ][writ of ][Mandamus ][or ][any other ][appropriate ][writ, ][order ][or]Direction, [declaring the a. ][the ][ASSeSSment ][Order passed ][by ][the ][,tst Respondent,]uts [147 ][riw ][Sec. ][144 ][rlw ][Sec' ][1448 of the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961' dated ][09 ][01']2024, bearing [DlN. ][ITBA/AST/S/147t2o23-2411059571631(1), ][for ][the]Assessment [Year ][2018 ][- ][19, ][b. ][consequential penalty ][orders ][passed ][by ][the ][1st]Respondent, [levying penalty uis ][272A(1)(d) ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ][1961' ][dated]25.07-2024,bearingDINITBA/PNLlFt272A(1)(d)t2o24.2511067017467(1)'respectively, [for ][the ][Assessment ][Year ][201 ][8 ][- ][19 ][as arbitrary' illegal' bad in ][law']void-ab-initio,violativeoftheprinciplesofnaturaljusticeapartfrombeingviolativeofArticlesl4.lg(1Xg)and265oftheConstitutionoflndiaandSec. .i 14BA of the lncome Tax Act, 1g61, and consequenfly set aside the same in theinterests of justiceIA NO:10F 2024interests of justiceIA NO:10F 2024 Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated stay in the a' affidavit further proceedings, fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased toincruding any recovery. pursuant to the notice issuedby the 2nd Respondent, u/s 148 0f the Act, dated 26. 04. 2022. vide DrN andNotice TTBAiAST/'/148 112022- 2311042863051(1), for the Assessment year2018 - 19, pending disposal of the above Writ petition Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYASRt. A. V. A. SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: Ms. BOKARO SAPNA REDDYMs. BOKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. SC FOR tNcOME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER TT{E [P'SAMKOSHY]ANDTrrE IroNorJRABr-n [snr ][iusrrcE ] [RAo]NANDIKONDA WRIT [N][o.361][130] [2024] ORDER' [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard Mr' [A'V'A'Siva ][Kartikeya' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms' ][B'Sapna ][Reddy' ][leamed ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][tncome ][Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents']Perused [the record'] 2. This is [a ][writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section 148A]andl48ofthelncomel'axAct'1961(forshort'theAct')ortheassessmentordersthosehavebeenpassedunderSectionl4Tofthe Act [which ][have been ][assailed'] The Court made the following: ORDER TT{E [P'SAMKOSHY]ANDTrrE IroNorJRABr-n [snr ][iusrrcE ] [RAo]NANDIKONDA WRIT [N][o.361][130] [2024] ORDER' [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard Mr' [A'V'A'Siva ][Kartikeya' ][leamed counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms' ][B'Sapna ][Reddy' ][leamed ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][tncome ][Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents']Perused [the record'] 2. This is [a ][writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section 148A]andl48ofthelncomel'axAct'1961(forshort'theAct')ortheassessmentordersthosehavebeenpassedunderSectionl4Tofthe Act [which ][have been ][assailed'] 3. This writ [petition ][is ][being ][taken ][up ][today only ][on one ][of ][the]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the [subseque$inrtiation of ][proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendmertt [that ][was ][brought to ][the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Finance [Act,2O2l ][w'e.f., 0l'04'2021 ][onwards' ][proceedings] under Section 148,4. of the Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Section l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been deatt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5 t A ofthe Act read with Notification lg/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The said,judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue issue of 'l(2023) 156 taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l 5. Down [the ][line, we ][find ][that ][the ][same i55ue ][has also ][been]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts i'e'']the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF INCOME [& ][OTHERS2' ][Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case]of RAM [vs' UNION ] [INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of ] vs. UNIoN [oF ][INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High Court ][in the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [PATLOOI,A ][VS. ] COMMISSIONER [OI'INCOME ] [where the ][issue ][was ][in]respect [of intemational taxation' Bombay ][High ][Court in the ][case ][of]ABHIN [vs' TNCOME ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [which ][is again ][on ][international]taxation [and central ][circle' ][High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICEIII']Guj arat [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case][ of ] ' [yzoz+1464 ] [430 ][(Bom)]' i2nzil [1 ][56 taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][tar$apn.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][@ombay)l ]. -'iiOzqi [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] ' [yzoz+1464 ] [430 ][(Bom)]' i2nzil [1 ][56 taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]'l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][tar$apn.com ][4l ] [(Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][@ombay)l ]. -'iiOzqi [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAITYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in rhe case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. TINION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought fiom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided \,.this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy82024 SCC Online Gtlj 40t2'2025 SCC Online Jhar2gTo ' y2023 : RJ-JD :49 84-DBl (1 supra) [has been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition [i.e., ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [and ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there are ][about 1200 ][SLPs also ][filed ][arising out ][ofthe]same issue [being ][decided by ][various ][High ][Courts'] 7 . To a [query ][being put to the ][leamed counsel ][for ][the Revenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][fact ][that ][there ][is ][no ][interim]they order [granted ][by ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending ][before ][it' ][Meanwhile' fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical [nature ][are ][being ][piled ][up ][before ][this Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]hasalreadybeendealtanddecidedbythisveryHighCourtitself.8. On the [one ][hand, ][even ][though the order ][of ][this Court ][that]was [passed as ][early ][as ][on ][14'09'2023 ][and ][more ][16 ][months ][have]till [date, ][we ][do not ][find ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by [the Income ][Tax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice under Section ][1484' and under]Section 148 of [the ][Act ][by ][the jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer']rather the [authorities concemed ][in ][the ][teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major,trigi. Cuqrts iuIndia are continuously stilrinitiating proceedings under Section148.4 of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020as also the Fin ance Act202l. 9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to fire equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned standing counsel that no prejudice wourd be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case ifthis writ petition is kept pendingtill the hnalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this court as to why the Income Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take ' ing that [proceedings ][under Section ][148A]approPriate [stePs ][ln ][ensul:]of the Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act are [kept ][in ][a ][hold ][in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various [High ][Courts, ][it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel [that the ][said ][steps ][can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the level ][of ] as any [such ][steps ][would ][have ][to ][be ][taken ][Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited [to any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional High ][Courts'] 10. [As ][a ][result ][of which' ][what ][we are ][facing ][is ][steep increase ][of]titigation [day ][in ][and day ][out ][even ][though various ][orders have ][been]passed by [this High ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on ][the ][very ][same]issue. [The Income ][Tax ][authorities ][concerned are ][still ][even now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the ][provisions]of Section [151A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as a ][result ][by ][now' ][more ][than ][600]toT00petitionshavebeenalreadygotpiledupbeforethisHighCourt [on ][an ][issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely ][covered ][by ][the]of [this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy]judgment (1 supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is ][the fact that ][though while]allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Red.dy [(l ][supra), the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][iqterest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fi'esh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 and,the Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reseryed for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been stilr sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this I{ighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax Department [would ][get the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]in [favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings [from ][the disposal ][of ][these ][matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]which [would ][be ][advantageous and ][beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would [be ][equally ][disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the [assesses ][are ][concemed' ][As ][a ][consequence' the ][Income Tax]Department [gets ][an ][extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation of ][fresh]proceedings' Department [would ][get the ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]in [favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings [from ][the disposal ][of ][these ][matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]which [would ][be ][advantageous and ][beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would [be ][equally ][disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the [assesses ][are ][concemed' ][As ][a ][consequence' the ][Income Tax]Department [gets ][an ][extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation of ][fresh]proceedings' 12. The [alarming trend of docket explosion in ][this Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent ][set ][in Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' ][is ][a]matter of [grave concern' The Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation [of ][fresh proceedings' ][disregarding ][the established ][judicial]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over [600-700 ][petitions ][piling ][up ][on ][the ][same ][issue' ][This]deliberate [approach ][not only ][undermines the ][principle ][of ][judicial]but [also strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]precedent Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]while [continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]pending SLPs to be a [calculated ][move ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitationperiods,ratherthanadheringtotheestablishedlegal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and therespect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections l4g_A and 14g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps whichit is arready seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g_A and I4g, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall 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 r decision if at all !* [*,-] !* [*,-] has to [be taken, ][has ][to ][be ][taken ][for ][the ][whole ][of ][India' ][and ][which]otherwise [has ][to ][be ][by ][way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and that ][too ][at ][the]level of [Central ][Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing [Counsel ][for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended that]the Delhi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ petition ][of ][similar ][nature' ][on]the one [hand when ][the ][High Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, [such ][notices ][which ][are ][under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition [are ][forcing the ][assessee ][to ][knock the doors ][of ][this ][High]Court [resulting ][in ][filing ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which in]the long [run ][not ][only ][affects ][the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also [consumes substantial ][time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters [again and again on ][daily ][basis' Admittedly' ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter [before the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][having ][been ][taken ][on]many occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter [has ][been ][reluctant ][in ][granting any ][interim protection to ][the]Income [Tax Department' ][Yet' ][the ][authorities concemed ][at ][the]State [level ][are ][not ready to ][accept ][the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High [Courts ][of ][diff'erent ][States ][on ][the ][same ][issue; ][and ][to ][make]things [furtff-€r-worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity [by issuing notices continuously under ][Sections ][148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXil, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the pat of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : .25 Mr' [paridwara ]has righry drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi ordinate Bench Sarafl2 of this C(as also the recent decision of the co_or wh ch one or us ,rrr;': : iil:r:il:::J:i::1, ;^::;the Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted,,the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsUnion binding of force. lndia Referring vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation to the decision of the Supreme Ltd.14, theCourt rnCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being ,,not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. " ll !t1q2j,.tr^o ll !t1q2j,.tr^o !t1q2j,.tr^o [978] [gmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l ]_-.-_ " ll !t1q2j,.tr^o ll !t1q2j,.tr^o !t1q2j,.tr^o [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 IZOZ+1165 [taxmann.com ]5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) ta lt}OZltaxmann.com 16i55 ELT 433 (SC) ',!:. ^ " ll !t1q2j,.tr^o ll !t1q2j,.tr^o !t1q2j,.tr^o [978] [gmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l ]_-.-_ " ll !t1q2j,.tr^o ll !t1q2j,.tr^o !t1q2j,.tr^o [978] I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 IZOZ+1165 [taxmann.com ]5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay) ta lt}OZltaxmann.com 16i55 ELT 433 (SC) ',!:. ^ "6. Sri Reddy [is ][perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers [were ][not ][actuated ][by any ][mala fides ][in]the [impugned ][orders ][They ][perhaps]passing genuinely [felt that the claim of the assessee was ][not]tenable [and ][that, ][if ][it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But what ][Sri ][Reddy overlooks ][is ][that ][we]are not [concerned ][here with ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise [of ][their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]malafides [but ][with ][the ][fact that ][the ][officers' ][in reaching]in their [conclusion, by-passed two appellate ][orders ][in]to [the same ][issue which ][were ][placed ][before]regard tnem, one [of ][the ][Collector' (Appeals) ][and the other ][of]the Tribunal [The ][High ][Court has' ][in ][our ][view' ][rightly]criticized [this conduct ][of the ][Assistant Collectors ][and]the harassment [to ][the assessee caused by ][the ][failure]of these [officers ][to ][give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities [higher ][to ][them in the appellate ][hierarchy ][lt]cannot [be ][too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of ].utmost [importance ][that' ][in ][tisposing ][of ][the]quasi.iudicial [issues before them' revenue officers ][are]bound by [the ][decisions ][of ][the ][appellate ][authorities']The order [of the ][Appellte ][Collector ][is ][binding ][on ][the]Assistant [Collectors working within his ][iurisdiction ][and]the order [of ][the ][Tribunal ][is ][binding upon the Assistant]Collectors [and ][the ][Appellate Collectors who ][function]under the iurisdiction [of ][the ][Tribunal ][The principles of]judicial discipline [require ][that the orders ][of ][the ][higher]appellate [authorities should ][be ][followed ][unreservedly]by the [subordinate ][authorities ][The ][mere fact ][that ][the]order of the [appellate authority ][is not ]["acceptable" to]the department - [in itself an ][objectionable phrase ][-]and is the [subject ][matter ][of ][an appeal ][can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following [it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been suqq3nded [by a competent ][court ][lf this healthy] -\.- \ \ rule is not followed, the result [will ][only ][be ][undue]harassment to assesses and chaos [in ][administration]of tax laws. 12. [\Ne ]have dealt with this aspect at [some ][length,]because it has been suggested by [the ][learned]Additional 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 mafters [which, ][if ][allowed ][to]become widespread, 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 Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the [utmost ][regard]should be [paid ]by the [adjudicating ][authorities ][and the]appellate authorities to the requirements [of ].iudicialdiscipline and the need for [giving ]effect [to ][the ][orders]of the higher appellate authorities [which ][are ][binding]on them." 1 5. What is \^/orrylng [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]numberofHighCourtsallofwhomhavetakenaConsistentStandthat the action [of the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][b_eing ][violative ][of ][the] 1 5. What is \^/orrylng [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]numberofHighCourtsallofwhomhavetakenaConsistentStandthat the action [of the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][b_eing ][violative ][of ][the] Finance [Lct, ][202|and Finance ][Ar;-' 2C2] ][:' Ndw': ][irrotddr ][to ][protect]the interest [of the ][Revenue ][as ][also that ][of ][the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][be]trite at [this ][juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that the disposal ][of the ][instant ][writ ][petition in]terms of [the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]KankanalaRavindraReddy(lsupra)shallhoweverbesubjecttothe outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which ][were ][frled ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department [and ][which is ][pending consideration ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court.] 16. In [the ][given ][facts ][and circumstances' ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered [opinion ][that ][unless ][and ][untit ][we ][do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely covered ][by the ][decision ][of this Court]and which [stands ][fortified by the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]High [Courts ][on ][the ][very ][same ][issue' ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]Court [would further ][be ][burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed [of ][as ][a ][covered ][matter'] 17. So [far ][as ][the ][interest ][of the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' ][we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion that ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and ][protqcted. ][as has ][been observed ][in ][paragraphs] -16, [)7 ][arfi ][38 ][of ][the ][cider ]which, for.ready reference,, is reproduc:clhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 149 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are gefting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the [procedural ][flaw, ]the right confened [on ][the ][Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so ][want ][from ][the stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the [procedural ][flaw, ]the right confened [on ][the ][Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so ][want ][from ][the stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra] 18. [We ][would ][only further ][like ][to ][make ][observations ][that ][since]we are [inclined ][to ][dispose ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition' ][conscious ][of]the fact [that ][the ][earlier order ][of ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]KanakalaRavindraReddy(|supra)issubjectedtochallengebefore [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024'']preferred [by the ][lncome ][Tax Department' ][we make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [prefened ][by ][the ][Revenue.against ][the ][decision ][of ][this]High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Red'dy ][(l ][*pra)']This, in [other ][words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the parties' ][if ][they]so want, [may move ][an ][appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ [petition ][in ][the ][light ][of ][the decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [in ][the ][pending ] [on the ][very ][same issue'] Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in] 19.Accordingly, favour of [the ][assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concerned. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned notice ][under]challenge [under ][Sertions ][148-A ][and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed'] The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanalu Ravindru Reddy (1 supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed sSMAN ALI BAIGsNT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//To,SECTION OFFICER\ [/]1. Assessment Unit. lncome Tav ua^o-+-^^r r.r-, ii# [BifiT:iiflt]f ][:fr? ][,',,#33 [ti;[x1",11fi ][#ffi ][",i: ][nit::l;ir]:+!!,.j3:il:q:B\:ff 3. The [principal ]Comm["'1,,['"%1;:(r],8,_d.%:?3t;!:;rraxrowersAC]i,ffii[i$*m.*9"'xii'u+intl,*:+t#'i,:;.ru'-*o CD CopiesU ,U LS,,, ; I I HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER (." 1HE [S14r]€'oJ(I,J11IIJE M()* OrspaTCP(:O WP.No.36113 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS g /.,4 /5