Of Finance [Act, ][2021 ][W'e'f', ][01'04'2021 Onwards' ][Proceedings v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH couRr [FoR ] AT HYDERABAD(SPecial [Original ][Jurisdiction)] WEDNESDAY, .._ [THE'THIRTIETH DAY ] TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [USTiI.iNARSI ] WRIT [P] [NO:2][87][800F2] Between: ili;l!:s:+ff [: ][jk$H?rifi ][fl ][ix?#'f ][:}..3:':i;i#'*::ln:il:] AND ThelncomeTaxOfficer'Ward.14(1)'l.T.Towers,A.C.Guards,Nlasabtank,Hyderabad [- ][500004' ]...RESPONDENT PetitionunderArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndiaprayingthatinthecircumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased to [pass ][an ][order or direction' ][especially ][one ][in ][the ][nature ][of ] IMANDAMUS [holding ][that the order passed by ][Respondent ][u/s ][14BA(d) ][of the ][Act']dl.16.O4.2[24with [and Notice ][No ][ITBA/AST/Ft148At2O24-25t1O64144788(1)]and the [notice ][dated ][16 ][04 ]['2024 ][issued under section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][with ][DIN and]Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/148-1 [12024-25t1064145080(1 ][) ][for ][the ][assessment ][year]2017 [-18, ][as being illegal, ][arbitrary ][and ][passed ][in ][gross violation ][of ][principles of]natural [justice without application ][of ][mind' ][and consequently ][set ][aside ][the ][same'] lA NO: [1][oF ][2024] Petition [under ][Section 151 CPC ][praying ][that ][in the circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit [filed in ][support ][of the ][petition' ][the ][High Court may ][be ][pleased ][to]suspend [the operation ][of the ][notice issued ][by ][the ][Respondent u/s 148 ][of ][the Act']dt.16.04.2024 [for the ][assessment ][yeat ][2017-18 ][with DIN and ][Notice ][No'] tTBA/AST/S/1 4 8-1 t2024_25/1064145080(1) and all consequential proceedingsthereto.thereto. Counsel for the petitioner: SRI A.V.RAGHU RAMcounset for the Respona"nt: rvris i'oxln6 s?inrn REDDy, Jr. SC FoRSRI A.V.RAGHU RAMcounset for the Respona"nt: rvris i'oxln6 s?inrn REDDy, Jr. SC FoR The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HONOT]RABLE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDAWRITPETITION [No][.28780][ of2024] ORDER' [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Jtstice ][P'Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. [A.V.Raghu ][Ram, ][leamed ][counsel ][for ][the] petitioner [and ][Ms. ][B'Sapna ][Reddy' ][leamed ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel [for ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondent']Perused the [record.] 2. This is a [writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings are either]challenged [to the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148,{]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'] 3. This writ [petition ][is ][being ][taken ][up ][today only on ][one ][of the]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section ][1484. ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][tetms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Finance [Act, ][2021 ][w'e'f', ][01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] 2. This is a [writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings are either]challenged [to the ][notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148,{]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'] 3. This writ [petition ][is ][being ][taken ][up ][today only on ][one ][of the]that [the ][notices ][issued ][under Section ][1484. ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, and the subsequent [initiation ][ofproceedings ][under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][tetms]of the amendment [that ][was ][brought ][to the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Finance [Act, ][2021 ][w'e'f', ][01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] under Section l4ilA <,f the Act as aiso under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceede<l in a facelessmanner.4' The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue proceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, Z02l i.e., theAct ought to have also been issued and proceede<l in a facelessmanner.4' The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue proceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, Z02l i.e., theimpugned notices undeir Section 14gA and Section l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withmanner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andRAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA as also under SectionSection 14gA as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l51A ofthe Acr read with Notification lg/2022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on simirartermsthe Acr read with Notification lg/2022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on simirarterms The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of '1Q023) 156 taxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l 5. Down the line, [we ][find ][that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also been]decided against [the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e',]by the Bombay [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][vs. ASSISTANT COMIvIISSIONER]OF INCOME TAX [& ][OTHF'RSz, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN [vs. ] [INDIA3, ][Punjab ][and]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ] Haryana High vs. UNION OF INDI#, [and Telangana ][High Courl ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of international [taxation, Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR [vs. ] [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again ][on ][intemational]taxation and [central ][circle, ][High court of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs. ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat High Court [in ][the ][case ][of ] 'Szoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]"[(2024) [165 ]taxmann.com ll5 [(Punjab ][&Haryana)]]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(ftlangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bomi6ay)l]'12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIryABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICE& DAIryABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICE& WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIfyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION Of,, INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case ol SI{ARDA 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 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 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 of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd-, (2 supra) as arso the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddyt2024 scc online Gg 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar2BTI o 72023 [: ] [:49 ]84-DBl (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']ln addition, [there are about 1200 SLPs ][also ][fited ][arising ][out ][ofthe]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 ][of ][these]matters [pending ][before ][it' ][Meanwhile' 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 ][14'09'2023 and ][more ][16 ][months ][have]lapsed, [till ][date, ][we ][do ][not ][find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken [by the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either [hold ][back ][issuance ][ofnotice ][under Section 148A ][and ][under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer']rather [the authorities ][concemed ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High courts in India are continuously stiilinitiating proceedings under Section 14gA 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,2020as also the Finance Act202l.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 Department 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 theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before 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 Department have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take ' ing that [proceedings ][under Section 148A]approPriate [steps ][ln ][ensur]of the [Act ][as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][of ][the]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]Counsei [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 ][jurisdictional High ][Courts']10. [As ][a result ][of ][which, what we ][are ][facing ][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 ][Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy]What [is ][also ][surprising ][is ][the ][fact ][that though while](1 supra). allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindta]Reddy (l [supra); ][the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has ][also protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the riberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitred toinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitred tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The fresh 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 bebadavailing 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 I l. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless manner, theliberty that this HighCourt 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 these 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 these 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 ][advantage ][of ][the ][liberty ][that ][is ][otherwise]protected[in ][favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]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 ][set ][in ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' ][is ][a]matter [of ][grave concern' ][The ][Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation [of ][fresh proceedings, disregarding the ][estabrished ][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 ][undermines the ][principle of judicial]precedent [but ][also strains the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' ][The]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] posttton. Such conduct raises serious questions about theserious questions about theadministrative efficiency and therespect for judicialrespect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights anda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests. 13. 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 l4g_A and l4g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd sl-ps 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 l4g, 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 the Hon,ble Supreme Court 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 if at 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 ][learned]Standing [Counsel ][for ][the lncome ][Tax ][Department ][contended ][that]the Delhi [High ][Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature' on]the one [hand ][when ][the ][High ][Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, [such notices ][which ][are ][under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]are [forcing ][the ][assessee ][to ][knock ][the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]petition Court [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]matterbeforetheHon,blesupremeCourthavingbeentakenonmany occasions, [the ][Hon'bte ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter [has ][been ][reluctant ][in ][granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income [Tax Depaftment' ][Yet' ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level [are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High [Courts ][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] lI 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. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXn, on an issue whether it wasjustiflable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the a_djudicating authority only on theground that the appears are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. [paridwalla ]has righ,y 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. Kurkarni) was a member, whereinthe court categoricafly 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 would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of India vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd. j4, 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 relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. '' ',)yt. ^o32l.nO y^mann.com 422 (Bombay)l[978] It3 tTR 589 (Bombay)[978] It3 tTR 589 (Bombay) '.3. IZOZ [11 ][1 ]65 taxmann.com 5 [g ]I /3 00 T axman 452(Bombay) 5 to ]t9921taxmann.com 16155 ELT433 (SC)]t9921taxmann.com 16155 ELT433 (SC) '' ',)yt. ^o32l.nO y^mann.com 422 (Bombay)l[978] It3 tTR 589 (Bombay)[978] It3 tTR 589 (Bombay) '.3. IZOZ [11 ][1 ]65 taxmann.com 5 [g ]I /3 00 T axman 452(Bombay) 5 to ]t9921taxmann.com 16155 ELT433 (SC)]t9921taxmann.com 16155 ELT433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy [is ][perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers [were ][not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala fides ][in]the [impugned ][orders ][They ][perhaps]passing 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 ][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]to [the ][same issue which ][were ][placed ][before]regard 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 ][iurisdiction ][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 ][obiectionable phrase ][-]and is the [subject ][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 lhe observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that th€court, seeminsry,"r";::::-T;'"jJ::,ff;unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to lhe 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 futushourd be paid by the r.,rr,"::iliff",,[T::"Jil:appellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fbct 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 f, 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fbct 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 f, Finance [Act,2020and ][Finance ][Lct'}OZl' ][Now' ][in ][order ][to ][protect]the interest [of ][the ][Revenue ][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 disposal ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition in]terms [of ][the ][judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala [Ravindta ][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]Supreme [Court.] 16. ln [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 ][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 ][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 3 8 of the order which, for ready reference, 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 141 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 lhe proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issuslained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raisedand contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one_timemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of 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 ][rernain ][reservet ][to]further [if ][they ][so ][want ][from ][the stage ][of ][the]proceed order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra'] 38Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one_timemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of 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 ][rernain ][reservet ][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 only ][further ][like ][to ][make ][observations ][that ][since]we are [inclined to ][dispose ][of ][the instant ][writ ][p;tition' ][conscious ][of]the fact [that the earlier ][order ][of ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]KanakalaRavindraRedd'y(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 [preferred ][by the Revenue ][against ][the decision ][of this]Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][xtpra)']High in [other ][words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the parties' ][if ][they]This, 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 ] [on ][the ][very ][same issue'] 19Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition stands ][allowed ][in]favour of [the ][assessee ][so][ far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concemed.Asaconsequence,theimpugnednoticeunderchallenge [under Sections ][148-4 ][and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed'] The ccnsequentiai orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKunkanala Ruvindrs Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY DEPUW REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// SECN OFFICER To II8JL8# :a6officer, [ward ]['14(1), ][t.r. ][rowers, ][A.c. ][Guards, ][Arrasabtank,]:a6officer, [ward ]['14(1), ][t.r. ][rowers, ][A.c. ][Guards, ][Arrasabtank,]23psl[?3 ;,X tX,ff-"J8^Ht[ AEbB?5t:s3pt* ,,"o,. ,o*3psl[?3 ;,X tX,ff-"J8^Ht[ AEbB?5t:s3pt* ,,"o,. ,o* ATwo CD CopiesPSK.PSK.GJP?{- ,/ HIGH COURT DATED:30104t2025 ORDER WP.No.28780 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS(+>f/ - -. ilrlEsla(r)6fgol't,2I AIJE 206,.,*,Q.t'>1,.1-_r,r{O