Mohit Soni v. Income Tax Officer & Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.13486 of 2025 Date of Decision: August 22, 2025 Mohit Soni ….Petitioner. Versus Income Tax Officer & another ..Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1]For the Petitioner:Ms.Isha Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents:M/s Neeraj Sharma and Ishan Kashyap,Advocates. Vivek Singh Thakur, J(Oral) Issue notice. Mr.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, appears, waives and accepts service of notice on behalf of the respondents.2.The instant petition has been filed for grant of thefollowing substantive relief:- “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issuewrit in the nature of Certiorari or any otherappropriate writ, order or direction, therebyquashing/setting aside the impugned notice underSection 148 dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-2)being illegal, without jurisdiction, against theprocedure and further based on the illegalsanction/approval under Section 151 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/actionsconsequent thereto.”writ in the nature of Certiorari or any otherappropriate writ, order or direction, therebyquashing/setting aside the impugned notice underSection 148 dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-2)being illegal, without jurisdiction, against theprocedure and further based on the illegalsanction/approval under Section 151 of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/actionsconsequent thereto.” 3.The subject matter of the challenge in this petition,whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? under Section 148, dated 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) is alreadyunder consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India inSLP (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 25.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), as assailed in this petition.We direct that the present petition shall be governed by thejudgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decisionthereto, shall be binding on this case also. 5. The continuity of proceedings before the competentauthority, 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 thetime issue is finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Orderedaccordingly. 6. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also thepending application(s), if any. August 22, 2025 (Purohit) (Purohit) (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Sushil Kukreja) Judge.