Date Of Decision: 08.09.2025 v. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 14455 of 2025 Date of decision: 08.09.2025 Vineet Sharma…Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Shimla & Ors.…Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner:Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate (ThroughVC) with Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. IshaanKashyap, Advocates, for respondentsNo. 1and 2.Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior PanelCounsel, for respondent No. 3. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. Ishaan Kashyap,Advocates and Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned Central GovernmentCounsel, appear, waive and accept service of notice on behalf ofthe respective respondents. 2.The instant petition has been filed for grant of thefollowing substantive reliefs:- “(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashingthe impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Actfor AY 2022-23 dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) issuedby respondent No. 1 and the consequential re- assessment proceedings for the subject Assessment Yearinitiated being devoid of jurisdiction; (ii) To stay the operation of the impugned notice underSection 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2)issued by respondent No. 1, during the pendency of theCivil Writ Petition; 3. The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned noticeunder Section 148, dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) is alreadyunder consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indiain SLP (C) No. 17040/2024, titled as The AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr.Reddy Laboratories Ltd. with connected matters. 4. Since the issue involved in this petition is alreadypending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,therefore, keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrainourselves from giving our opinion with respect to impugnednotice under Section 148, dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), asassailed in this petition. We direct that the present petition shallbe governed by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt and the decision thereto, shall be binding on this casealso. 5. The continuity of proceedings before the competentauthority, in view of the pendency of the matter before theHon’ble Supreme Court is bound to lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to stay suchproceedings till the time issue is finally decided by the Hon’bleSupreme Court. Ordered accordingly. 6.The petition is disposed of in above terms, so alsothe pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge 8[th] September 2025 (sanjeev) (Sushil Kukreja) Judge