Down The Line, We Find That The Same Issue Has Also Beendecided Against The Revenue Byvanous High Courts I.e.,By The Bombay High Court In The Case Of Hexawarete v. Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax & Others2, Gauhati High

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD(Speciat Original Jurisdiction)MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WR]T PETITION NO: 32613 0F 2024 Between: !-glr.rlT [Etania ][Develop^ers ][LLp., ][Road No.78, ][plot ][No.283 Lansum, ][Jubitee]Hrils, Hy_derabad - 500033. Represented by its Vice-president, sri l. AnilKumar, S/o. J. Lakshmana Rao ...PETITIONER AND The lncome Tax -Officerl Ward - 14(1), l.T. Towers, A.C. Guards, Masabtank,Hyderabad - 500004. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may bepleased to pass an order or direction, especialy one in rhe nature of wRrr oFMANDAMUS holding that the order passed by Respondent u/s..r48A(d) of theAct, dt.31 .08.2024 with DrN and Notice No. rrsA/AST/F/14 8Ar2o24-2511068216410(1) and the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under section .148 ofthe Act with DIN and Notice No.rrBA/ASTistl4B-112024-2st1068217688(1) forthe assessment year 20iB-19, as being illegal, arbitrary and passed in grossAct, dt.31 .08.2024 with DrN and Notice No. rrsA/AST/F/14 8Ar2o24-2511068216410(1) and the notice dated 31.08.2024 issued under section .148 ofthe Act with DIN and Notice No.rrBA/ASTistl4B-112024-2st1068217688(1) forthe assessment year 20iB-19, as being illegal, arbitrary and passed in grossviolation of principres of naturar justice without apprication of mind, andconsequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased tosuspend the operation of the notice issued by the Respondent u/s.1 48 of the Act, with DIN and [Notice]dt.31 .08.2024[for ][the ][assessment ][Year ][20'lB-19]andall consequentialNo.ITBAJAST [Sl ][1 ][48-1 ] [2o24-25t ][1OoB217 ][688(1)]proceedings thereto. Counsel for [the ][Petitioner: ] [A'V'RAGHU ] Counsel for [the ][Sole ][Respondent: Ms' B'SAPNA ][REODY' ][Jr' ] [lT]The Court made [the ][following: ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDTKONDA WRIT PETITION No.326t3 0F 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr. A.V.Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, leamed Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department for the respondent. perused therecord. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l4gAand 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 l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by .\ \the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the lncome Tax Act by wayof Finance Acl, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148A of [the ][Act ][as ][also ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also [been issued and proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner. The contention of the contention of the of the the [[petitioner ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]] 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l4gA of the Actand the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section l4g ofthe Act by .\ \the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the lncome Tax Act by wayof Finance Acl, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148A of [the ][Act ][as ][also ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]Act ought to have also [been issued and proceeded ][in ][a ][faceless]manner. The contention of the contention of the of the the [[petitioner ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]] 4. The contention of the contention of the of the the [[petitioner ][is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[is ][that ][the ][issue ][of]][[that ][the ][issue ][of]][[the ][issue ][of]][[issue ][of]][[of]]proceedings being in violation [of ][the Finance ][Act,202l ][i'e', ][the]impugned notices [under Section ][1484. ][and ][Section ][148 ][of ][the Act]not being issued [in ][a ][faceless ][manner, ][have already ][been ][dealt ][with]and decided by this [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] RAVINDRA REDDY [vs. ] [decided]on 14.09.2023 [whereby ][a ][batch ][of ][writ ][petitions ][were ][allowed ][and]the proceedings initiated [under ][Section ][l48A ][as ][also ][under Section]148 of the Act were [held ][to ][be ][bad ][with ][consequential reliefs ][on the]ground of it being in violation [of ][the ][provisions ][of ][Section ] [5 ][1A ][of]the Act read with [Notification ][1812022 ][dated29.03.2022. ][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 ][(Telangana)]] ) 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Courr in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAs, punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where rhe issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKIIBHAI' [yzoz+1464 ] [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l^ [(2024) 165 taxmann.com 115 (Punjab & Haryana)]' 12024) 67 taxrsa$r.com 4 I I (Telangana)l " 12024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l '12024) [165 ]taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)l " 12024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l '12024) [165 ]taxmann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA VS. INCOME [OFFICE&]WARD 3(3Xt8, Jharkand High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW [vs. ]UNION [INDIAe, ][Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA DEVI [CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAX]OFFICER & ANOTHER [and ][batch.of ][writ ][petitionslo which]stood decided on [19.03.2024. ][Similar ][views ][have also been ][taken]by the Division [Bench ]of [Calcutta ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA [VS. ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), deci'ded on25.09.2024-6. Even though the same issue having [been ][decided ][by ][a ][large]number of High Courts, [we ][are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][filing ][of]identical matters on daily [basis ranging ][between ][5 to ][10 ][writ]petitions. That upon the instructions being [sought ][fiom ][the]Department, they have been taking [a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of the Bombay High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Heraware]Technologies Ltd., [(2 ]supra) [as also ][the ][one ][which ][has ][been]decided by this Court in the [case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy] '2024 [Online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 SCC Online [lhar ][287]o ' 12023 [: ][RJ- JD :49 ][84-DBl] (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'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.'In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also filed arising out ofthesame 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 itsetf. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court 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 ofnotice under Section l4gA and underSection 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer,,.rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts [in ][India are ][continuously still]initiating proceedings under [Section ][1484 ][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 ][Act202l.]g. 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 ofthe petitioners in case ifthis [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 [come]out with a mechanism to issue appropriate [instructions ][or ][to ][take] appropnate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section l4g of theAct are kepr 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 level 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 oirt even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Cdurt allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 1514. of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanukala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (1 supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberty [which was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue for]fiesh [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]availing the said [liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]contrary, they [have been ][still ][sticking on to the ][stand, ][which ][this]High Court as well [as ][mairy ][other ][High ][Courts already ][held ][to ][be]bad.11. It appears [that ][because ][ofthe ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that this High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time [measure ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner, ][the]Income Tax [Department ][wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same by]these [proceedings ][which would ][enable ][them to ][meet ][the]protracting 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]Courts in which the SLPs [are ][still ][pending, ][the ][Income ][Tax] .l Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of fieshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income Tax. Department 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 Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. 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 ofjudicialprecedent 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 to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set'in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. 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 ofjudicialprecedent 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 to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such [conduct ][raises ][serious ][questions ][about ][the]administrativeefficiencyandtherespectfbrjudicialpronouncements, [particularly ][when ][this ][Court ][has already ][provided]a balanced [approach ][by ][preserving both the ][Revenue's ][rights ][and]assesses [interests.] 13. Another [aspect ][which ][needs ][to be considered ][is that ][in ][fact ][it]should 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 the]twelve [hundred (1200) odd ][SLPs ][which ][it ][is ][already seized ][of or' ][at]least the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][should have ][found ][out ][some]remedial 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 ][defened]without [precipitating ][the matter ][further ][intimating ][the ][assessee ][that]shall [initiate ][appropriate proceedings ][only ][after ][the SLP's ][are]they decided by [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][on the ][very ][same ][issue']This again, the [Income Tax Department, ][has ][not been able ][to give ][a]convincing repty, [except ][for ][the ][fact that ][such ][a ][decision ][if ][at all] has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe 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 HighCourl resulting in filing ofhundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourl resulting in filing ofhundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet, the authorities concemed at thematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makeof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections l4g_A and 148 through [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][whereas ][it ][ought]to have been only [in ][the faceiess manner.] 14. In the [case ]of [vs' ] COMMISSIONER, [TAXI1, ][on ][an ][issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][in ][not]an order [passed ][by ][the adjudicating ][authority only ][on ][the]following 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 Couit [in ][Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs' ][Smt']Godavaridevi Sarafl2 [as ][also ][the ][recent ][decision ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate Bench of [this ][Court in ][Samp ][Furniture ][(P) ][Ltd' ][v' ][lTO13]of which one of us [(Justice ][G.S. Kulkarni) was ][a ][member, ][wherein]the 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 ][lo ][law, ][it ][would loose ][its]binding force. Referring [to ][the decision ][of ][the Supreme Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. [Kamlakshi ][Finance ][Corporation ][Ltd'14, the]Cou( 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.] " 71zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9781 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " Tzoz+1165 [taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] 'o ltggzltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [433 (SC)] F " 71zozs1 [170 ][taxmann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9781 [113 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " Tzoz+1165 [taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)] 'o ltggzltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [433 (SC)] F "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapspassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here withthecorrectness orwould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here withthecorrectness orotherwise of their conclusionorof any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by_passed two appellate orders inmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by_passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforewhich were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflythe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righflycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassmenl to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofthe harassmenl to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers areutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Co ector is binding on theAssistant Colleclors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantAssistant Colleclors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherunder the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable, tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended 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. We 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 matters which, ][if ][allowed ][to]become widespread, [could result ][in ][considerable]harassment to the [assesses-public without any benefit]to the Reverue. [We ][would ][like ][to ][say ][that ][the]should [take these ][observations ][in ][the]department proper spirit. The observations [of ][the ][High ][Court]should 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 ][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 Income Tax Department being ][violative ][of ][the] Finance Act, 2A20 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest ofthe Revenue as arso that ofthe assessee, it wourd betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal ofthe instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankunala Ravindra Reddy (l .supra) [shall however be subject to]the outcome of the SLps which were filed by the Income TaxDeparlment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this courtand 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 concerned, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36,jlaod38of.theorderwhich,forreadyreference,isreproducedhereunder: 36. For [all ][the ][aforesaid ][reasons' the ][impugned notices]issued and [the ][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]by the [respondent-Department ][pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]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]proceduratly [wrong, ][the ][subsequent ][orders ][also ][gets]nullified [automaticallY'] 37. The [preliminary objection raised ][by ][the petitioner ][is]sustained [and ali ][these ][writ ][petitions stands allowed ][on]this very .iurisdictionat [issue ][Since the impugned ][notices]and orders [are ][getting quashed ][on the ][point ][of].lurisdiction, [we are ][not ][inclined ][to ][proceed ][further ][and]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 ][tc ][proceed]under the [substituted provisions' and ][this ][Court ][allowing]the [petitions ][only ][on ][the ][procedural ][flaw' ][the ][right] 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 ][tc ][proceed]under the [substituted provisions' and ][this ][Court ][allowing]the [petitions ][only ][on ][the ][procedural ][flaw' ][the ][right] 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 only 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 ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy ('l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Jax 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 ofthisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ruvindra Reddy (l stpra).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 very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed infavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 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] Kankanala [Ravindrq ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' ][There shall be no order ][as] to costs Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions ][pending' ][if ][any' shall'] stand [closed] ANI Sd/. [K.BHAV]REGISTRARASSISTANT//TRUE sECTloOFFI[ ] OFFI[ ] '' To,A'C [Guards' ][Masabtank']- 14(1)''' [-"^^,,]- 14(1)''' [-"^^,,], ll:ii:Bs"-1ffi3Jf";*ard 2. One [to SRI ] [V'RAGHU RAM' Advocate ][ 3. One [to ][Ms ][B'SAPNA REDDY' ][Jr' ][SC FOR lT 4- Two [CoPies] BSRPVL w HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDERWP.No.32613 of 2024 a(qi* 'i29 [ruE ][26].t.1,,aIspn l a[,-ii1t)] ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS G,oPqdw#@85