> Not Being Issued In A Faceless Mamer, Have Already Been Dealt With And Decided B1, This Court In The Case Of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. Income_Tax Officert Decided On 14.09.2()23 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed And The Proceedings Initiated Under Section L4Ga As Arso Under Section

t [3447I] tt oHrcH couRr'?+ IlE:ItI'^sf lo*ooo (sPecii [oiiginal ] [urisdiction)] "'H,?Ain'J5.'^=*[=Iffi ['#JE*o*"'?'["'"] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P'SAM ] RAo [NANDIK.NDA]THE HoNouRABLE [sRl ]"t#'o*o*slNc NNO:205930F [2025]WRIT Director [- ][P].tri, Paras [Collins ][Drstilleries ][Pn]Hyderabad'iilifxu-ii"oov, [SurveY ][N]N%bI'5* "''AHsglEl:Telangana- [501218'] Between: ...PETITIONER AND If ?&gl?'J35!"?;'{i}Hi3',ft [|il,s?:r'}lt"1'"i'n:#'ffi ][5b',of ]['''"''] 1 2ll'*'l'll1:ltm'"-'i:::ir'if?#?J*l;i'4"';-1'rrrower'Acll'*'l'll1:ltm'"-'i:::ir'if?#?J*l;i'4"';-1'rrrower'Ac ...RESPONDENTS Petition [under ][Article 226 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]crrcumstances [stated ][in ][tn"ltr'd"* ][tir"d therewitn' ]i"#';:r?tl"l"L:""t''t"'t""1fifiuug;ffi$$i#np#$d#ffi'ffi [i',:11{ffi]iff iHil"ffifi [:L'ffiY*[i ][?Xo' ][ll, ][ft ][;*'*] ][ir'" ][p,."'p.. ][o ][r ] [atu ][ra I ] [u ][stice] IA NO:[1][ oF ][2025] petition under section 151 [cpc ][praying ][that ][in ][the ][circumstances stated ][in]the affidavitfited [in ][suppoi'.iit. ][p.titio",ihJ.Hig. ][Corrt ][mav be pleased ][to ][stay]alt further [proceedings ][p'oti"i ][to ][[nt ][ntti"" ][uls ][i+e dt' ][28 ][06 ][2025 vide DIN ][No']|rBA/AST/S/148-1t2L25-i6'iibliiiorrzs(1) [issued ][by ][the ][JA0(1 ][respondent)]instead of [for ][n' ][V' ][ZOfS- ][20' ][and ][may pass such other order(s) ][as ][the]Hon'ble [Court ][deems ][nt ][JnA pr.opt' ][in ][the lnterests ][of ][substantial ][iustice' ][as]otherwise [the Petitioner ][wJ;b" ][il ][to irreparable ][loss ][and severe iniury'] ' .{'/a?',Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K SUDHAKAR REDDY SC FOR lTThe Court made the following: ORDER THE RABLE ] [P'SAM KOSHY]rrrE HoNouurr-,nsffiisrrcE [NAR.TNG ][RAo] o.20593[of2][025] PETITIONN ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikanda)] learned [counsel][ for ][the] learned Heard [Mr.Dundu ][Manmoharu]petitioner [and ][Mr'K'sudhkar ][Reddy' ][Iearned ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department appearing ][for ][the]respondents. [Perused ][the ][record'] This is is [a ][writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either] 2. This is is challenged [to the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][148A]and [148 ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act' ][1961 ][(for ][short'the Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those have been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have ][been assailed']l. This [writ ][petition ][is ][being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]grounds, [that ][the ][notices ][issued ][under ][Section ][t48A ][ol'the ][Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation ][of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought to the lncome ][Tax ][Act ][by way].qf Finance Act, 2021 w'e'f'' [01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] 2. This is is challenged [to the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][148A]and [148 ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act' ][1961 ][(for ][short'the Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those have been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act [which ][have ][been assailed']l. This [writ ][petition ][is ][being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on one ][of ][the]grounds, [that ][the ][notices ][issued ][under ][Section ][t48A ][ol'the ][Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation ][of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought to the lncome ][Tax ][Act ][by way].qf Finance Act, 2021 w'e'f'' [01'04'2021 onwards' ][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.4. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue ofAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Section r4g ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless mamer, have already been dealt withand decided b1, this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2()23 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under section l4gA as arso under SectionI48 of the Acr r.vere held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theand decided b1, this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2()23 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under section l4gA as arso under SectionI48 of the Acr r.vere held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 15lA ofthe Act read wirrr Notification tg/2022 dated29.03.2o22. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number ol u,rit petitions which were allowed on similarterms.judgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number ol u,rit petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue of '[(202]) Li6 taxrnann.conr lTll (Telangana)l @y: i [,;-tn],P ) 2..2-| ' I':r,ia,.}. . ,:;.,/ Down [[the line, ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ]][[we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ]][[find ][that ][the ][same issue ]][[that ][the ][same issue ]][[the ][same issue ]][[same issue ]][[has. ][also ][beeu]][[also ][beeu]][[beeu]] The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue of '[(202]) Li6 taxrnann.conr lTll (Telangana)l @y: i [,;-tn],P ) 2..2-| ' I':r,ia,.}. . ,:;.,/ Down [[the line, ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ]][[we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ]][[find ][that ][the ][same issue ]][[that ][the ][same issue ]][[the ][same issue ]][[same issue ]][[has. ][also ][beeu]][[also ][beeu]][[beeu]] 5. Down [[the line, ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ]][[we ][find ][that ][the ][same issue ]][[find ][that ][the ][same issue ]][[that ][the ][same issue ]][[the ][same issue ]][[same issue ]][[has. ][also ][beeu]][[also ][beeu]][[beeu]]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD" ][vs' ][ASSISTAIT{T ] OF INCOME [& ][OTHERS2' ][Gauhati ][High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM [vs' ][UI{ION ] [INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High Court ][in the ][case ][of ] vs. UNION [oF ][INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High ][court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect [of ][internationar taxation, Bombay ][High ][court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN [vs' ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [TAXATIOIf ][which ][is ][again ][on intemational]taxation [and ][central ][circle' High ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICER"]Gujarat [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] t lzoz+1 464 ITR43o (Bom)'tizoz+t [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]' t(2024) [[65 taxmann'com ][115 ][@unjab ][& ][Haryana)]] ' [2024) [167 ][taxmann.com 411 (Telangana)]]" 12014) I66 taxmann.com [679 ][(Bombay)l]'i:o:+i ins ta\mann.com [l3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABIIAI RADADTYA vs. INCoME TAx OFF.ICER, WARD 3(3Xr8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIIyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER 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 rNDIA & 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 with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision o1- the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in rhe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy82024 SCC ont.inc Cu.i 40 t2'2025 SCC Onl.ine Jhar 2B:-to 12023 [: ] l):.l9ti4- DI) l (1 supra) [has ][been subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition [i.e., ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court [and ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there ][are ][about ][1200 ][SLPs ][also ][irled ][arising ][out ][ofthe]same [issue ][being ][decided ][by various ][High ][Courts']7 - To a [query being put to ][the ][leamed counsel ][for ][the Revenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][fact that ][there ][is no ][interim]they order [granted ][by ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending before ][it' ][Meanurhile' ][fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical [nature ][are ][being ][piled ][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 ][t4'09'2023 ][and ][more ][16 ][months ][have]tapsed, [titl ][date, ][we do ][not ][find ][any ][rernedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by [the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][to take ][appropriate ][steps to]either hold [back ][issuance ][of ][notice under ][Section ][148,4. ][and ][under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act by ][the ][jurisdictionat ][Assessing ][Officer']rather the [authorities ][concerned ][in ][the ][teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section I4gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the 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), leamed Standingcounsel for the Income Tax Departmenr contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theIeamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case it this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the St_ps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Court and the fact rhar rhe petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interirn protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the [ncome Tax Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issrrc appropriate instructions or l.o take appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that ][proceedings ][under ][Section ][148A]of the Act [as also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under ][Section ][148 ][ofthe]Act are [kept ][in ][a ][hold ][in ][the ][light of ][the 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 ][o[these jurisdictional High ][Courts']l0.Asaresultofwhich,whatwearefacingissteepincreaseoflitigation [day ][in ][and ][day out ][even ][though various ][orders have ][been]passed by [this High Court atlowing ][writ ][petitions ][on ][the ][very sa ][rc]issue. [The ][Income ][l'ax ][authorities concemed are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 alsoinitiating [proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to the ][provisions]of Section [t5lA ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a result ][by ][now' ][more than ][600]to 700 [petitions have ][been already ][got piled up ][before ][*ris ][High]Court [on ][an ][issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy](l supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is ][the ][fact ][that ][though ][while]allowing the [rvrit ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), [the ][Division ][Bench ][white ][reserving the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has ][also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue for initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe 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 bebad 11.It appears that because of rhe aforesaid liberty that this Highliberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue fbr initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thervrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Suprenre Court confimsthe decision taken by this High Couft as also by ttre other Highfaceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thervrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Suprenre Court confimsthe decision taken by this High Couft as also by ttre other HighClourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax Department [would ][get the advantage ][of ][the ][libeny ][that ][is. ][otherwise]in [favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected 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 Income ][Tax]Department [gets ][an extended ][period ][of ][time ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings.12. The [alarming trend ][of ][docket explosion in this ][Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent ][setin Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' is ][a]matter of [grave ][conceffI' The ][tncome ][Tax ][Department's ][persistent]initiation [of ][fresh proceedings' disregarding ][the established ][judicial]pronounc€ments, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedented surge ][in ][litigation]with over [600-700 petitions ][piting 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 ][Court's decision ][on]pending SLPs [while ][continuing ][to ][initiate ][fresh ][proceedings]to be [a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]appears limitation [periods, ][rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions . about theadministrative efficiency and therespect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests l3' Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 14g_A and l4g should not have been issued in afaceless maruler, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections l4g_A and 148. other rhan in afbceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredrvithout precipitating the matter further intinrating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings onry after rhe SLp,s aredecided by the Hon,ble Supreme Courr on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision ilat all has to [be ][taken, ][has ][to ][be taken ][for ][the ][whole ][of ][India' ][and ][which]otherwise [has ][to ][be ][by ][way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and ][that ][too ][at the]level of [Central ][Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing [Counsel ][for ][the Income ][Tax ][Department contended that]the Delhi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature' on]the one [hand when ][the ][High Court ][is ][struggting ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, [such ][notices ][which ][are under ][challenge ][in ][this writ]petition [are ][forcing the ][assessee ][to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this High]Court [resulting ][in frling of ][hundreds ][of ][neu' ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long [run ][not only ][affects the disposat ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also [consumes substantial ][time ][oi ][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 been ][taken on]many [occasions, ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matterhasbeenreluctantingrantinganyinterimprotectiontotheIncome [Tax Department' ][Yet' ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level [are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept ][the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][maj ][ority]of High [Courts ][of ][different ][States ][on ][the ][same ][issuel ][and ][to ][make]things further [worse, ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity [by ][issuing notices continuously under Sections ][148-4 ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue whether ir wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfbllowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division tsench of theHigh Court of Rombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. [paridwalla ]has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Gommissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafr2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. tTO,3of which one of us (Justice G.s. Kurkami) was a member, whereinthe court categoricafly observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe sante is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose (sbrnding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.,o, thecourt observed that the approach of the officiars of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the retevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ,,I(2025) t7 0 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay))(2025) t7 0 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay))', II9781 lll It'R -589 (Bombay),, I20241 165 raxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (llornbay),, Il9eli1;1r1'l3pn.rorn l6l55 ELT433 (SC) h,, I20241 165 raxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (llornbay),, Il9eli1;1r1'l3pn.rorn l6l55 ELT433 (SC) h .] (SC) [\V]h ,,I(2025) t7 0 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay))(2025) t7 0 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay))', II9781 lll It'R -589 (Bombay),, I20241 165 raxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (llornbay),, Il9eli1;1r1'l3pn.rorn l6l55 ELT433 (SC) h,, I20241 165 raxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (llornbay),, Il9eli1;1r1'l3pn.rorn l6l55 ELT433 (SC) h .] (SC) [\V]h "6. Sri ReddYis perhaPs [right ][in ][saYing ][that ][the]officers [were]not actuated [bY any ][mala ][fides ][in]passing theimpugned 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 concEmed [here ][with the ][correctrEss ][or]otherwise of [their ][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 ofiicers [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 Cotlectors [working within ][his ][iurisdiction ][and]the order [of ][the Tribunal is binding ][upon ][the Assistant]Collectors and [the ][Appellate Collec{ors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of the ][Tribunal ][The principtes ][of]judicial discipline require that lhe orders [of the higher]appellate authorities [should ][be ][foHowed unreservedly]by the subordinate authorities. [The ][mere ][fact that ][the]order of the appellate authority [is ][not 'acceptable" ][to]the depadment - in itself an obiectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal [can furnish ][no]ground for not following it unless its operation [has]been suspend€d by a competent [court. ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only.be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in adminiskationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12We have dealt with this aspec{ at some length,because it has been suggested bythe leamedAdditional Solicitor General that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. It is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue mafters which, if allowed toAdditional Solicitor General that theobservationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. It is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue mafters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that theto 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 judicialproper 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 judicialdrscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them."of the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is wotrying this Bench more is the fact thar an 15. What is wotrying this Bench more is the fact thar an endeavoul- is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of t{igh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action olthe lncome Tax Department being violative olthe Finance [Lct,2020and ][Finance ][Act'2O21' ][Now' ][in order ][to ][protect]the interest [of ][the ][Reventre ][as ][also ][that ][of ][the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][be]trite at [this juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that ][the ][disposat ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of [the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanals [Ravindra ][Retldy ][(l ][supra) shall however ][be ][subject ][to]the outcome [of ][the ][SLPs ][which ][were ][frled ][by ][the ][lncome ][Tax]Department [and ][which ][is pending consideration ][before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme [Court'] 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 ][fortifred ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]High [Courts ][on the ][very ][same ][issue' ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]Court [would ][further ][be burdened ][which ][otherwise can ][be decided]and disposed [of ][as a ][covered ][matter'] 17. So [far ][as ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is concerned' we ][are ][ol]the considered [opinion ][that the interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and ][protected, ][as ][has ][been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36, 37 and 3 8 of the order which, for ready refeience, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The 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 14g 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 subseguent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onth,s very lurisdiclional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are gefting quashed on 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, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a onetime measureexercising the powers under Article 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 confened [on ][ttte ][Revenue ][would ][remain reserved ][to]further [if ][they ][so ][want ][from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]proceed order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra] 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a onetime measureexercising the powers under Article 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 confened [on ][ttte ][Revenue ][would ][remain reserved ][to]further [if ][they ][so ][want ][from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]proceed order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra] 18. [We ][would onty ][further ][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]KanakalaRavindraReddy(lsupra)issubjectedtochallengebefore [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred [by ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department' 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 ][Kanakala Ravindra ]['Reddy ][(t ][supra)']This. in [other ][words, would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the ][parties' ][if ][thev]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. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of [the ][assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the][ issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]theimpugned [notice ][under]concemed. [As ][a ][consequence']challenge [under Sections ][148-4 ][and ][148 ][stands set aside/quashed'] I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar telms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII sD/.K.BHAVANI SWAMYAST REGISTRAR To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The DC/ACIT Circterrio*ui,'xid.lili;.il?;Sri3l,L??,.;#?ji}"t"13f i,B#r;65t,2ndFroor,rrio*ui,'xid.lili;.il?;Sri3l,L??,.;#?ji}"t"13f i,B#r;65t,2ndFroor, 2. The Additional ComG,;;.i;,i\,il;;1"jili'i?3::jgJ:f#rr"1*iffi%?;:,rrrower,ACG,;;.i;,i\,il;;1"jili'i?3::jgJ:f#rr"1*iffi%?;:,rrrower,AC 3. One CC to SRt DUNDU MANMOHAN Advocate tOpUClAdvocate tOpUCl \4. One CC to SRt. K SUDHAKAR REDDY SC FOR tT One CC to SRt. K SUDHAKAR REDDY SC FOR tT KKS [T*. ] [Copies] GJP HIGH COURT 'DATED:1 ilOttzo4s ORDERWP.No.20593 of 2OZs ALLOWTNG THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS v/-rJ/9,4[2] .4 -',.,..-1,,,,.a\.'i2O MiI I