Hhc:9014 v. Income Tax Officer, Ward Palampur, H.p & Ors

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.14080 of 2025 Date of decision: 01.09.2025 GM Powertech, Kalaamb Nahan, District Sirmour. ….Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward Palampur, H.P & Ors. ….Respondents Coram:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, J.The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, J.Whether approved for reporting ?[1] Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge(Oral): Issue notice. Mr.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate waives service and accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 2.The instant petition has been filed for grant of thefollowing substantive relief:- “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writin the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction, thereby quashing/setting asidethe impugned notice issued under Section 148 dated17.06.2025 (Annexure P-3) being illegal, withoutjurisdiction, against the procedure and further basedon the illegal sanction/approval under Section 151 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/actionsconsequent thereto.”in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction, thereby quashing/setting asidethe impugned notice issued under Section 148 dated17.06.2025 (Annexure P-3) being illegal, withoutjurisdiction, against the procedure and further basedon the illegal sanction/approval under Section 151 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/actionsconsequent thereto.” Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 3.The subject matter of the challenge in this petition,whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice underSection 148, dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P-3) is already underconsideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (c)No. 17040/2024, titled as The Assistant Commissioner ofIncome Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd. withconnected 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 refrain ourselves fromgiving our opinion with respect to impugned notice under Section148, dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P-3), as assailed in this petition. Wedirect that the present petition shall be governed by the judgmentpassed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto,shall be binding on this case also. 5. The continuity of proceedings before the competent authority, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’bleSupreme Court is bound to lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore,we deem it appropriate to stay such proceedings till the time issue isfinally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ordered accordingly. 6. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge September,01, 2025 (reena)