Eddy Mantur, Learned Counsel [For]The Petitioner And Mr K.sudhakar [(Eddy, ][Leamed Senior ][Standing]Counsel For The Income Tax Department For [The ][Responden v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENiT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NANSIUC WRIT PETITION NO: 26842OF 2024 Between: Smt. Vijaya Laxmi Bommidi, W/o [B. ][Sudhal(ar ][Reddy, ][Aged ][about ]_65 [years' ][Occ]House [- ]Wife, H.No.'16-1 1-77412 [Kundanlql ][Lane, ][Maiakpet ][Colony ] [O]IVOSOARAMBAGH, Hyderabad 500036, [Telapgana, ][lndia.] .....PETITIONER AND 1 . The lncome Tax Officer, Ward ['l ]5 [(1 ]), l-llyderabad, [lncome Tax Towers ][Masab]Tank. Hyderabad-500004.Tank. Hyderabad-500004. 2. Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome [Tax ][lncome ][Tax ][Towers, AC Guards]Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500004.Masab Tank, Hyderabad-500004. 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department [National ][Faceless]Assessment Centre Room No 40'l [. ]2nd Floor [ERamp Jawaharlal ][Nehru]Stadium Delhi 110003.Assessment Centre Room No 40'l [. ]2nd Floor [ERamp Jawaharlal ][Nehru]Stadium Delhi 110003. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 oi lhe Constitution of lndia [praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ]the [High Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more [particularly ]one [in ][the ][nature of]Writ of Mandamus, declaring the [impugned Orderdt.04/03/2024 ][passed ][uls ][147]R/w Section 144, rcad with section [1448 ]of [the ][lncome Tax ][Act, vide ] [No]ITBA/AST/S/14712023-2411061918899(1) and [also ][issued Notice ]of [demand]under section 156 of the lncome-Tax Act, 1961, dated 10.09.2024, vide DIN andNotice No ITBAJPNL/S/15612024- 2511068511695(1), by the 3rd Respondent forA.Y. 2015-16, pursuant to the order u/s 14EA(d) dt.0710412022 and notice issued u/s 148 dt.0710412022 by the JAO instead of FAO, as void, illegal, and contrary tothe Provisions of Income-tax Act and contrary to the Prin,;iples of Natural Justice. I.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stayall the further proceedings initiated by the 3rdRespondent against the Petitioner,pursuant to the impugned order passed u/s 147 Rlw Section ['144, ]read withsection 1448 of the lncome Tax Act, vide DIN No ITBA/AST lsl147l2O23-2411061918899(1) and also issued Notice of demand under section 156 of theincome-Tax Act, 1961 , dated 1010912024, vide DIN and Notice NoITBAIPNL/S115612024-25110685'1 1695(1), by the 3rd Re spondent for A.Y.2015-16, in PAN No.AULPC0014 till the final disposal of this writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel forthe Respondents: SRt K.SUDHAKAR REDOY, LEARNED SENIORSTANDING COUNSEL FOR THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRTT PETITTON N .268420F 2024 9BDEB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice P.San Koshy)] Heard Mr. Venkatram Reddy Mantur, learned counsel [for]the petitioner and Mr K.Sudhakar [(eddy, ][leamed Senior ][Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax Department for [the ][respondents]Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition wherB the [proceedings ]are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued [under ][Section ][148,4.]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, [1961 ][(for ][shon ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have been [passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed. The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRTT PETITTON N .268420F 2024 9BDEB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice P.San Koshy)] Heard Mr. Venkatram Reddy Mantur, learned counsel [for]the petitioner and Mr K.Sudhakar [(eddy, ][leamed Senior ][Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax Department for [the ][respondents]Perused the record 2. This is a writ petition wherB the [proceedings ]are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued [under ][Section ][148,4.]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, [1961 ][(for ][shon ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have been [passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being takgn up today only [on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued unper Section [1484 ]of [the ][Act]and the subsequent initiation [ofprogeedings under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment that was [brought ]to [the ][Income Tax ][Act ][by ][way]of Finance Act,202l w.e.f., 01.0f.2021 [onwards, ][proceedings] under Section 148,4. of the Act as also under Sr:ction 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and procee,led in a facelessmanner4. The contention contention of the petitioner is tliat the issue ofthe petitioner is tliat the issue ofpetitioner is tliat the issue ofis tliat the issue oftliat the issue ofissue ofofproceedings being in violation ol'the Finance t\ct, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Secticn 148 of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alrea,ly been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OI'FICERT decidedon 14.09.2021 whereby a batch o1'writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 148A as eLlso under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequertial reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions o I Section 1 5 1A olthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.C3 .2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsr:quently fotlowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms The contention contention of the petitioner is tliat the issue ofthe petitioner is tliat the issue ofpetitioner is tliat the issue ofis tliat the issue oftliat the issue ofissue ofof 'l(2023) [156 ][taxmann.com ][178 ][(Telangana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSTONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case ol JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ]DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Borrrbay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal [Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKTIBIIAI 2 Tzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom) ' l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [t ][5 ][(Punja! ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 1 ][(Telangana)l] "12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] 2 Tzoz+1464 ITR 430 (Bom) ' l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ l(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com [t ][5 ][(Punja! ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][41 1 ][(Telangana)l] "12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIII'ABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIIYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Courr inthe case of SHARDA DEVI (IHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro 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 vrith large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging betwt:en 5 to I 0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought ftom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Clourt in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd, (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Retldy 8z0z+ SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Onlinb Jhar287o ' 12023 [: ] [:498 ][4-DBl] (1 . 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 Qourt is seized of the matterIn addition, there are about 1200 SI;Ps also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts.7. To a query being put to the lerrned counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there [is no ][interim]order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ [petitions ]ofidentical nahre are being piled up blefore this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increa$ed on matter which [otherwise]has already been dealt and decided !y this very High Court itself.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 havelapsed, till date, we do not f,rnd a4y remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Departmgnt to take appropriate [steps ][to]either hold back issuance of notice under Section [148A ][and under]Section 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing Offrcer,]rather the authorities concemed in lhe teeth of series of [decisions] by all the rnajor High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 1484' of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Lct, 2020 as also the Finance Lct 2021.9. Upon a query being put as ro why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision renderetl by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contend; that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Deparlrnent where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it rvould be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention cf theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice woull be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending belbre 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 Departmr:nt have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instnrctions or to take appropriate steps [in ][ensuring ][that ][propeedings ][under Section ][1484']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 submiffed ][by ][the ][learned ][Standing]Counsel that the said [steps can ][only ]$e [taken ][at ][the level ][ofCBDT]as any such steps [would ][have ][to ][be taken ][Pan ][India ][and ][cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional ][I'Iigh ][Courts.] 10. As a result of which, [what ][we ]bre [facing is ][steep increase ][of]litigation day in and day [out ][even thqugh ][various ][orders have ][been]passed by this High Court allowing [writ ][petitions on ][the ][very ][same]issue. The Income [Tax ][authorities ][cQncemed ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also initiating [proceedings ][in ][cpntravention ][to ][the ][provisions]of Section 15lA of [the ][Act ][and ][as a ][result by ][now, ][more ][than ][600]to 700 petitions [have been already ][got ][piled ][up ][before ][this ][High]Court on an issue [which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy](1 supra). What is also surprising [is ][the ][fact ][that ][though ][while]allowing the writ [petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanskala ][Ravindra]Division [Bencfr ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]Reddy (1 supra), the the Revenue, has also [protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating frcsh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedinitiating frcsh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions ol-the Act, as amended by the Finance Act,2020 andthe Finance Act,2021 . The petitioner assessee would be entitled tothe 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 reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebadfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad 1 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshCourt 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 thcse 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 Highprotracting thcse 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 advantagq of the liberty that [is otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and leneficial to the [Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental [so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concerned. As a [consequence, ][the lncome ][Tax]Department gets an extended period of [time for initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. Department would get the advantagq of the liberty that [is otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and leneficial to the [Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental [so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concerned. As a [consequence, ][the lncome ][Tax]Department gets an extended period of [time for initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket [gxplosion in this Court, ][despite]the clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concern. The Incor4e 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 undertnines [the ][principte ][of ][judicial]precedent but also strains the [judiciEl ]resources unnecessarily. [The]Department's strategy of awaiting t\e Supreme [Court's decision ][on]pendlng SLPs while continuing initiate fresh [proceedings][o appears to be a calculated move to buy time [and ][circumvent]limitation periods, rather than adhBring to [the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious [questions ]about [the]administrative efficiency and the respec)t [for ][judicial]pronouncements, particularly wherr 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 considert:d [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 [( ]I 200) odd SLPs [vrhich ]it is alreaCy [seized of ][or, ][at]least the [ncome Tax Department should have fcund out [some]rernediai steps to ensure that wherever the autrorities [intend ][to]initiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than [in ][a]faceless manner, the proceedings should have been [deferred]without precipitating the matter further intimatin6; the [assessee ][that]they shall initiate appropriate [proceedings ]only after [the ][SLP's ][are]decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very same [issue.]This again, the Income Tax Department, has not [b,een ][able to ][give ][a]convincing reply, 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 leamedStanding Counsel for the Income Jax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a wpit petition of similar nahrre, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which arer 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 inthe long run not only affects the dipposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily babis. Admittedly, in,spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supremo Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in grantin! any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, tho authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States op the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income ' [Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing notices continuqluslyunder Sections 148-4 and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Off,rcer whereas [it ][o.ogirt]to have been only in the faceless manner. 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Off,rcer whereas [it ][o.ogirt]to have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIt, on an iss,re [whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Dipartment in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on [the]ground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 asr under, viz., [:] "25. Mr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out atl.ention to thedecision of this Court in Gommissioner of lncome [Tax ]vs. [Smt.]Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Cou( in Samp Furniture [(Pl ]Ltd. v. lTO13of 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 tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it lvould [loose ][its]binding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court [in]Union of lndia vs. Kamtakshi Finance Corporation [Ltd.14, the]Court observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oflreating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" was criticized by [the]Supreme Court. ln such decision, following ar€r the [relevant]observations made by the Supreme Court. 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)]Ir [(2025) 12 1t [9781 ] [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]'3 120241165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxmar452 ][(Bombay)]'o ltggzltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [433 ][(SC)] 170 taxmann.com 422 (Bombay)]Ir [(2025) 12 1t [9781 ] [l3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]'3 120241165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxmar452 ][(Bombay)]'o ltggzltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [433 ][(SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated iby any mala fides [in]officers were not actuated iby any mala fides [in]passing 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 Repdy overlooks is that weare not concerned here wlth the Gorrebtness [or]otherwise of their conclusipn or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passe( hvo appellate orders [in]regard to the same issue which were [placed ][before]them, one of the Collector [(APpeals) ]and the other [of]the Tribunal. The High Courtt has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment to the assesspe caused [by ]the [failure]of these officers to [give ]dffect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in tlle appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehemently epphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, iin disposing of [the]tenable and that, if it was Accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Repdy overlooks is that weare not concerned here wlth the Gorrebtness [or]otherwise of their conclusipn or of any [factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passe( hvo appellate orders [in]regard to the same issue which were [placed ][before]them, one of the Collector [(APpeals) ]and the other [of]the Tribunal. The High Courtt has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors [and]the harassment to the assesspe caused [by ]the [failure]of these officers to [give ]dffect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in tlle appellate hierarchy. [lt]cannot be too vehemently epphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, iin disposing of [the]quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of ttie appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on [the]Assistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunal is birlding [upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate rCollectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Trlbunal. The [principles ]ofiudicial [discipline require that ][fihe ][orders of ][the ][higher]iappellate authorities should bb followed [unreservedly]by lhe subordinate authorities, [The mere fact ]that [the]order of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ][to]the department - in itself aniobjectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish [no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competpnt court. [lf this healthy]bound by the decisions of ttie appellate [authorities.]The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on [the]Assistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ][and]the order of the Tribunal is birlding [upon the Assistant]Collectors and the Appellate rCollectors who [function]under the [jurisdiction ]of the Trlbunal. The [principles ]ofiudicial [discipline require that ][fihe ][orders of ][the ][higher]iappellate authorities should bb followed [unreservedly]by lhe subordinate authorities, [The mere fact ]that [the]order of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ][to]the department - in itself aniobjectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish [no]ground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competpnt court. [lf this healthy] ) rule is not followed, the result will only b e undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminiskationof tax laws. ) rule is not followed, the result will only b e undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminiskationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and a cparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without arry benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities; and theappellate authorities to the requirements of [judicial]discipline and the need for giving effect to tfre ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are: bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,:2021. Now, in order to [protect]the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with [an]observation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered byithis High Court in the case ofKunkanala Ravindra Reddy (l suppa) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which Were filed by the Income [Tax]Department and which is pending cqnsideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circuffrstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covergd by the decision [of this Court]and which stands fortif,red by the decisions of the various [other]High Courts on the very same isslre, the [pendency ]of this [High]Court would further be burdened which otherwise can [be ][decided]and disposed ofas a covered matter., 11 . So far as the interest as the interest the interest interest of the Rpvenue is concemed, the Rpvenue is concemed, is concemed, concemed, [[we ][are ]][[are ]]ofthe considered opinion that the inte(est ofthe Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as h1s been observed in [paragraphs]the considered opinion that the inte(est ofthe Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as h1s been observed in [paragraphs] So far as the interest as the interest the interest interest of the Rpvenue is concemed, the Rpvenue is concemed, is concemed, concemed, [[we ][are ]][[are ]]of 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, fbr ready refere.rce, is reproducedhereunder 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the |espondent-Department is neither tenable, nor l;ustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure ad,:pted beingper se illegat, deserves to be and are acc()rdingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all th€ impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orclers passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 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. 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, fbr ready refere.rce, is reproducedhereunder 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the |espondent-Department is neither tenable, nor l;ustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure ad,:pted beingper se illegat, deserves to be and are acc()rdingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all th€ impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orclers passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 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 cetitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugrred noticesand orders are getting quashed on thr> point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petiticner 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-timo measureexercising the powers under Article 14L of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions bnly on the procedural flaw, the right ...'':.I \ conferred on the [Revenue ][wPuld remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from [the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the [Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]AgaMal, supra. 18. We would [only ][further like ][to ][make ][obseryations ][that ][since]we are inclined to dispose [of ][the ][instpnt ][writ ][petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that [the ][earlier ][order ][of ][this High ][Couft ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supna) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'bte [Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024,]Income [Tax ][Deparlment, we ][make ][it ][clear that]preferred by the allowing of the [instant ][writ ][petitionl ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [preferred ][by ][the Revenue against ][the ][decision ][of ][this]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakalp Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supta)']High This, in other [words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][ol ][the ][parties, ][if ][they]so want, may [move ][an ][appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition in [the ][tight ][of ][the decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending ] [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue'] lg. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed]1nfavour of the [assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]ISconcemed. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]under [Sections ][148-4 ][andi ][148 stands ][set aside/quashed]challenge lt The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar tenns as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall bc no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions penciing, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A. JAYASREEASiSISTANT REGISTRARsec{&orrrcen //TRUE COPY// HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDER WP.No.26842 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.?+ffiri l/-,.--(HE S14,...L\:t14.(I1,,\I1.23 ilB 2m\I..i.'