Ned Counsel ][Lor ][The]Ms. [I).Sapna ][Reddy, Leamed ][Senior ][Standing]Petitioner And Counsel For [The ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][Appearing ][For ][The]Re v. Income Tax Officer

t/1i. /=- TELANGANAH|GH [cou ][Rr ][.?T ]I+=rSItIioF (SPecial Original [Jurisdiction)] MONDAY, - -TWO iUOUSNTO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [SRI .TUST1aET'TINSING ] WRIT PE [N][O:20182][ o] Between: Rakshit [Pharm]aceuticals [Limited, ][Office ][At' ][425l3RT ][Rakshit ][House' ] Nagar HYderabad 500038v K Phani Kumar S/o: [Vasudeva Murthy' ][Occ'Authorised]Represented [B]'of ine Petitioner AADCRl986LRepresentatlve ...PETITIONER AND1:,"9I*11"d3:ftffi ['fl ]l31lli?.]3U""!i;Kondapur',HyderEoaa, [500084]1:,"9I*11"d3:ftffi ['fl ]l31lli?.]3U""!i;Kondapur',HyderEoaa, [500084] 2"ls;,.HJ'"'""o[:E:3jfl The Principal [Commissioner of lncome ][Tax ][- ][ll' ][llYderabad ][Sionature ] [owers']Kondaour. Kothasuda [opp.' ][e[ili;;i"s;rd"";l ][S6ritingampativ Ranga Reddv']Hyderdbad, [5ooo84]Kondaour. Kothasuda [opp.' ][e[ili;;i"s;rd"";l ][S6ritingampativ Ranga Reddv']Hyderdbad, [5ooo84] The National Faceless [Assessment.Centre' lncome ][Tax ][Department ][Ministry]oi'Fin'r,i"" [Govt. ][of ][lndia, New ][Delhi']oi'Fin'r,i"" [Govt. ][of ][lndia, New ][Delhi'] J 4Union of lndia, [Ministry of Finance ][Rep' ][by its ][Secretary' ][166-8 North ][Block']New Delhi [- ]['1 ][10 ][001]New Delhi [- ]['1 ][10 ][001] ..RESPONDENTS Petition [under ][Article ][226 ][ot ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High Court ][may ][be]pleased to i. [lssue ][a ][Writ, ][Order ][or ][Direction ][more ][particularly' one' in the ][nature]of Writ of [Mandamus, ][setting aside ][the order ][passed ][by ][the ][Respondent ][No'l]under Section [148A(3) ][and ][Notice issued ][u/s ][148 ][of ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Act' ]['1961]dated26.06.2025forAy2ozo-2l,asbeingwithoutjurisdictioniilegar,arbitrary'bad in law, [void ][ab ][initio, and being ][viorative ][of ][the principres ][of ][naturar ][justice ][and]Articles [14,19 ][and 265 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][as ][the same is ][issued by the] Jurisdictional Assessing Officer i.eRespondent No.1 after introduction of thefaceless assessment of lneomeescaping assessment scheme, and anyconsequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdiction, ii. andi or passfaceless assessment of lneomeescaping assessment scheme, and anyconsequent proceedings as lacking in jurisdiction, ii. andi or pass Counsel for the petitioner: SRI p. SRIKANTH RAO counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 To 3: MS. BoKARo sApNA REDDY (sENtOR SC TNCOME rAx) Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy.SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The C6urt made the following: ORDER a. TTIE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETTTI ON [No.20][ 182 ][of2025] ORDER, [(per ][Ilon'ble ][Sri ][Juslice ][Narsing ][Rtto ][Nandifunda)] Heard Mr. [P.Srikanth ][Rao, ][lcarned counsel ][lor ][the]Ms. [I).Sapna ][Reddy, leamed ][Senior ][Standing]petitioner and Counsel for [the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][appearing ][for ][the]respondents. [Perused the ][record'] 2. This is a writ [petition ][rvhere ][the ][ptoceedings are ][either]challenged [to the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]andi48oftheIncomeTaxAct,lg6l(forshort'theAct')ortheassessment [orders ][those ][have ][been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have ][been assailed'] 3. This writ [petition ][is being taken ][up ][today only ][on ][one ][of ][the]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section ][l48A ][ol ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]1tne e.c\ by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]oftheamendrnentthatwasbroughttothelncomeTaxActbywayofFinanceAct,202lw.e'f',01'04'2021onwards'proceedings 2. This is a writ [petition ][rvhere ][the ][ptoceedings are ][either]challenged [to the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][l48A]andi48oftheIncomeTaxAct,lg6l(forshort'theAct')ortheassessment [orders ][those ][have ][been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have ][been assailed'] 3. This writ [petition ][is being taken ][up ][today only ][on ][one ][of ][the]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section ][l48A ][ol ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]1tne e.c\ by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]oftheamendrnentthatwasbroughttothelncomeTaxActbywayofFinanceAct,202lw.e'f',01'04'2021onwards'proceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.1. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.1. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Irinanc e Acq 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section l4g of the Actnot being issued in a f-aceless rranner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case ol KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCONIE-TA-X OFFICI]RT decidedon 14.09.2023 whercby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andRAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCONIE-TA-X OFFICI]RT decidedon 14.09.2023 whercby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section r 4gA as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground ol it being in violation of- tl.re provisions o(. Section I 5lA ofground ol it being in violation of- tl.re provisions o(. Section I 5lA ofthe Act read rvith Notitlcation lBl2O22 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequenrly fbllowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similartermsjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequenrly fbllowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms ' tQ023) l -56 raxmann.com l 7g (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, [we ][find ][that the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]decided against [the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][tligh ][Courts ][i'e'']by the Bombay [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF INCOME [TAX & ][OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN [SAH vs' ][UNION OF INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][oiJATINDER ] vs. UNION OF [INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRT VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMN{ISSIONER [where the ][issue ][was in]of [intemational taxation, Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]respect ABHIN ANILKUMAR [vs' ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [which ][is again on ][international]taxation and [central circle, ][High ][Court ][of ][l{imachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat l{igh [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 'lzoz+1464 [430 (Bom)]' l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)l]^ [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Puniab ][& ][Flaryana)]]' [2024) [167 ][tdxmann.corn 411 ][(Telangana)]]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bornbay)l]'iZOZ+|165 [taxrnann.com ] [l3 ][(Ilimachal ][Pradesh)l] 'lzoz+1464 [430 (Bom)]' l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)l]^ [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Puniab ][& ][Flaryana)]]' [2024) [167 ][tdxmann.corn 411 ][(Telangana)]]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bornbay)l]'iZOZ+|165 [taxrnann.com ] [l3 ][(Ilimachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasrhan l{igh Courr inthe case ol SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Courr 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 issuc having been clecided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still conflonted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis raneing between 5 to 10 writ.petit.ions. [-lhat ]upon thc instmctions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Courl in the case <>t Hexow,nreTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakola Ravindrtt Reddy 82024 SCC Onlinc Guj 4012'2025 ScLqllline Jhar 287'o 12023 [: ] [:49 ][84-DB ]I has [been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave](1 supra) Petition i.e., SLP [No.3574 ][of ][2024 ][before the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Coud and [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there are ][about ][1200 ][Sl'Ps ][also ][filed ][arising ][out ][of ][the]same issue being [decided ][by ][various ][High ][Coutts'] 7 . To a query being [put to ][the leamed 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 ][ol ][these]matters pending [belore ][it- ][Meanwhile, ][fiesh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature [are ][being pited ][up before ][this ][Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and the pendency [is ][getting ][increased ][on matter ][which ][otherwise]has already been [dealt ][and ][decided ][by ][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 ][have]lapsed, till datc, [we ][do ][not find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either hold back [issuance ][of ][notice under ][Section 1484 ][and ][under]Section 148 of [the ][Act by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer']rather the authorities [concemed ][in the ][tecth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by alt the ma-jor High Courts in India are continuouslv stillinitiating proceedings under Section l4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income [.fax ]Actpursuant to thc Finance Act, 2020 as also the Finance Act 2021 .9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Deparlment contends that those wouldunnccessarily burden the Income Tax l)epartn-rent where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further bur.dening theexchequer of the Union of India. [t was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest ofthe petitioners in case if this rvrit petition is kept pendingtill the linalization of the SI_ps pending belore the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonethcless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department have not conteout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructiorrs or to take appropriate steps [in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings ][under Section 148A]ofthe Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][ofthe]Act are kept in [a ][hold ][in the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, [it ][was ][submitted ][by ][the- ][leamed ][Standing]Counsel that [the ][said ][steps ][can ][only ][be taken at ][the ][level of CBDT]as any such [steps ][would ][have ][to ][be ][taken Pan ][India and ][cannot ][be]limited to any [of ][these ][julisdictional ][High ][Courts'] 10. As a result [of ][which, ][what ][we ][are ][t-acing ][is ][steep ][increase ][of]litigation day [in ][and day ][out ][even ][though various ][orders ][have been]passed by this High Couft [allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on ][the very ][same]issue. The Income [Tax ][authorities concemed are ][still ][even ][now in]2025 also initiating [proceedings ][in ][contravention to the provisions]of Section 151A [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 ][Kanakula ][Ravindra ][Reddy]( 1 supra). What is [also ][surprising ][is ][the ][fact ][that though while]writ [petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]allowing the Reddy (l supra), [the Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has [also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresli proceedi,gs strictly in accordance *,ith the amendedinitiating fresli proceedi,gs strictly in accordance *,ith the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. 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. ()n thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, rvl.rich thisHigh Courl as vn.ell as many other High Courts alreacly held to bebad.fresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. ()n thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, rvl.rich thisHigh Courl as vn.ell as many other High Courts alreacly held to bebad. 11. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourr had granted permitting the Revenue for. initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome I'ax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enabrc thern to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewisc, if thew'rit 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 ttre other HighCourts in r.vhich the SLps are still pending, the Incomc Tax 11. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourr had granted permitting the Revenue for. initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome I'ax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enabrc thern to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewisc, if thew'rit 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 ttre other HighCourts in r.vhich the SLps are still pending, the Incomc Tax Department [would ][get ][the advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]protected[in ][favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][tbr ][initiation ][of ][lresh]proceedings [from the ][disposal ][of ][these ][matters ][at ][a ][much later ][stage]which would [be ][advantageous and ][beneficial ][to ][the ][Revenue and]would be [equally ][disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the [assesses ][are ][concemed' ][As ][a consequence' the ][lncome ][Tax]od of time [1br ][initiation ][ol ][fresh]Department [gets ][an ][extended Peri]proceedings.12. The [alarming trend ][of ][docket ][explosion ][in ][this ][Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent ][set ][in ][Kanakalo Ravindra ][Redtlv ][ll ][supra)' is ][a]matter [of ][grave concem' ][The ][Income ][Tax ][Depaftment's ][persistent]initiation [of ][fresh proceedings, ][disregarding ][the established ][iudiciat]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedentcd surge ][in ][litigation]with over [600-700 ][petitions ][piling ][up ][on ][the ][same ][issue' This]deliberate [approach ][not only ][undermines ][the principle ][of ][judicial]but [also strains ][the ][judicial ][resources unnecessarily' ][The]precedent Department's strategy [of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Courl's decision on]while [continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]pending SLPs appears to be a calculatcd [move ][to ][buy ][time ][and ][circumvent]limitation periods, [rather ][than ][adhering ][to the ][established legal] posltlon. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and therespecr fbr judicialprououltcemcnts, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses tnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have fbuncl out via media in ensuring that pr.oceedingsunder Sections 14g-A and I4g should not have been issucd in afaceless nlanncr, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Clourt decide thetrvelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized ol.or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiatc p.occedings under Sections l4g-A and 14g. other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp's aredecided by thc lJon'ble Suprerne Couft on the very same issue.This again, thc Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all a. a. has to be taken, has to be [taken ][for ][the whole ][of ][India, ][and ][which]other-wise has to be by way [of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that ][too ][at ][the]level ol Central Board of Direct Taxes. [Though ][the ][learned]Standing Counsel for the [Income ][Tax ][Depaftment ][contended ][that]the Dethi High Court dismissed [a ][writ ][petition ][o1 ][similar ][nature, ][on]the one hand when the High [Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce its]pcnder-rcy, such notices which are [under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition are forcing the assessee to [knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Courl resulting in filing [of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which in]the long run not only affects the [disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also consumes substantial time [of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again on [daily ][basis. ][Admittedly, ][in ][spite of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court having ][becn taken on]many occasions, the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized o1'the]matter has been reluctant in [granting ][any interim ][protection to ][the]Income Tax Department. Yet, [the ][authorities ][concerned ][at ][the]State level are not ready to accept [the ][verdict ][passed ][by a ][majority]of High Courls of different States on [the ][same ][issue; ][and to ][make]things further worse, the Income Tax [Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing notices continuously [under ][Sections 148-A ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In thc casc o1- BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXIr, on an issue whether it wasjustifiable on the parl of the Income Tax Department in noLfollowing an orcler passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theI{igh Court ol Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court 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. lTOi3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set astde in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. 'l I{ZOZs [170 ][taxrnann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [t3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 1Z0Z+1 [6-5 ][taxrnann.com ][5 ][8 ][l/300 ]Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o ltgOZltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [(SC)] 'l I{ZOZs [170 ][taxrnann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l] '' 1t9281 [t3 ] [589 ][(Bombay)] " 1Z0Z+1 [6-5 ][taxrnann.com ][5 ][8 ][l/300 ]Taxman 452 (Bombay) 'o ltgOZltaxmann.com [16/55 ] [(SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that [the]officers were not [actuated ][by ][any ][mala fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. [They ][perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim of [the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable and that, [if it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. But [what ][Sri ][Reddy overlooks is that ][we]are not concerned [here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise of thei|conclusion [or of ][any ][factual]malafides but with [the ][fact ][that ][the ][officers, ][in ][reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed ][two ][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 ][Court has, ][in our ][view, ][rightly]criticized this conduct [of ][the Assistant Collectors ][and]the harassment to [the ][assessee caused by ][the ][failure]of these officers to [give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities higher [to ][them ][in ][the appellate ][hierarchy ][lt]cannot be too vehemently [emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance that, [in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues before them, [revenue ][officers ][are]bound by the decisions [of the ][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 ][binding upon ][the ][Assistant]Collectors and the [Appellate Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of ][the Tribunal. ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline require that the orders [of ][the ][higher]appellate authorities [should be followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate [authorities ][The ][mere ][fact ][that the]order of the appellate [authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" ][to]-the department - in [itself an ][objectionable phrase ]and is the subiect [matter ][of an appeal ][can ][furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless [its ][operation ][has]been suspended by a [competent ][court. ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof 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 apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue rnatters whjch, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any 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 lo the requirements of ludicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the orders. of the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon thern." 15. What is \vorrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole irearledly to ensure rlot 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 15. What is \vorrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole irearledly to ensure rlot 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 FinanceAcL,2020andFinanceAct'2021'Now,inordertoprotectthe interest of [the ][Revenue ][aS ][also that ][of ][the ][aSSeSSee, ][it ][wouid ][be]trite at this [juncturc, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/directionthatthedisposaloftheinstantwritpetitionintenns of the [judgment ][rendered ][by this ][High ][Court in the ][case ][of]Kunkanala Ravindrs [Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][shall however ][be ][subject to]the outcome of [the ][SLPs ][which ][were ][filed by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department and [which ][is ][pending ][consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supremc Cour1. 16. In the [given ][facts ][and ][circumstances, ][this ][Bench ][is of ][the]considered opinion [that ][unless and ][until ][we do ][not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which [are ][squarely covered ][by ][the decision ][of ][this Court]and which [stands ][fortified ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Courts [on the ][very ][same ][issue,, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]High Court would [furlher ][be ][burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]and disposed of [as a ][covered ][matter'] ll . So far as the [interest ][of ][the ][Revenue is ][concemed' ][we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion ][that the ][interest ][of ][the Revenue has already]been considered [and protected, ][as has ][been observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 and 38 of the order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: 36 For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedrngs drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainableThe notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders 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 prelimrnary objection raised by the petrtioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdtctional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed cn the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, ln the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Artrcle 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the [Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from [the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the Supreme [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra, 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, ln the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Artrcle 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on the [Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from [the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the Supreme [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, supra, 18.We would only [furlher ][like ][to make ][observations ][that ][since]we are inclined to [dispose ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition, ][conscious ][of]the fact that the earlier [order ][of ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakakt Ravintlra [Redtly ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][St,P No.3574 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income [Tax ][Deparlment, ][we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]allowing of the [instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP [preferred by the Revenue ][against ][the ][decision ][ofthis]High Court in the [case ][of ][Konakala Ravindra ][Reddy (.1 ][supra)']This, in other words, [wottld ][mean that ][either ][of ][the ][parties, ][if ][they]so want, may move [an appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of ][this]writ petition in the [light ][of ][the ][decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending ][SLP on the very ][same issue'] 19. Accordingty, the [instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]t-avour of the assessee [so ][lar ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]1Sconcerne<l. As a [consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]under Sections [148-A and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed']challenge The consequenlial orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Coulr in the case ofKankontlo Ruvindra Reddy (l supra). ['I'here ]shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. M.NAGAMANIASSISTANT REGI TRAR SECTIFICER HIGH COURT DATED:1410712025 ORDERWP.No.2O182 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS(r\\cd GIt{E S r4a)r(.\15 sEP 2U5)