Of Finance Act, 2021 W.e.f., 01.04.2021 Onwards, Proceedingsunder Section 14Ga Ofthe Act As Also Under Section 14G Oftheact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And P v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1

rNrHEHrcHcouRrEo#J}1tlfl"!rT,l5-l*l"t)^-^ATHYDERABAD *o*?+':'#"HIilI"^ft 'Sl]#'?+l'o'[l'*'' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P'SAM ] RAo NANDIK.NDA THE HoNouRABLE [sRl ]""'fH*o*slNG oF 2024 WRIT PE [NO:][ 33530] Between: *mtrrmry*ryr..qr,+tr#*rl+i*,cil'lau,,"--*; ...PETITIONER o* "'"'?. rn. [n ][com e ][rax ][of ][frce r ][w ][a ][rd 1'-[h ][a ]1m AII ]TT: [rfiJ.?li;"rri??36,:' ]Rajiv Chowk, [Near K]Telangana.Rajiv Chowk, [Near K]Telangana. 2. rhe [p ][ri ][nci ][p"rcr ][i ][d ]iSH "Slij,i::tJ :::il? Jf,a i IE 5.lg1t' ?tt#E [:]HYderabad, [lT Towet]Telangana.HYderabad, [lT Towet]Telangana. 3. " ;i'R;;;r;, rhe [central ][Board. ]Ministry [of ]of [Direct ]Finance' Government [raxes' ][RePresented,bY,|:] ][oI]353r[[?,]BiffSll[';"' 'New Delhi [- ][110 ][001 ] lncome [Tax ][DePartment' ][New]4. The National [Faceless Assessment Center']Delhi.Delhi. 'IB,u,[]iJ"?:i"se"T:B:ffi [iJl:?$'"YF,:::::K3J",'*1f; ]'9?l"o't3i"'', ...RESPONDENTS Petition [under ][Article ][226 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances [stated in' ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High ][Court may ][be]pleased to issue [an ][appropriate ][writ' ][order or direction more ][particularly ][one ][in]the nature [of Writ ][of ][Mandamus, declaring ][the order ][passed by ][the ][lncome ][Tax]Authorities [(Nationar ][Faceress ][E-Assessment ][centre) ][completed ][the ][assessment] U/S 147 r.w.s 14424t10627s7826(1)ror,^";,'::J'""iill,iZil,r:,ilHffi of Rs. 10,11,97,570/_. as ::::::l:::"initio, viorative of the principres arbitrary, iltegal, bad of naturar justice in lawi without jurisdiction, void-ab-Artictes 1a, 19(1Xg) and 265 of the Constitu,,", Tax Act, 1961, "r'i.Trt:T:::trH.:;lJand consequen,y set aside the same in the interests offf,",:" IANo; 10F 2024 the affidavit fired petition under in section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated insupport of the petition, the High court suspend the order Under section 14lt.w.s 141may be preased torrBAp\sr/s/I 4 7 t 2o23'24t 1 0627 st 826(1 ) ror the'^:.:il:":' determining the total incorJj;i'il, Jl Irhe ncome rax act,#: Iff J,'i' lli',J"'l::"i,:TilT:X disposal 241106279T842(1) of the above Ot. writ 1t_O3-2O24 petition. for the assessrnent year 2018-19 i:r;::r::pending Counsel for the petitioner : SRI THANNERU : SRI THANNERU KUMAR"rO,rO""O Counsel for the Respondents No.1to4 : Ms.J.SUNITHA, Jr.SG "rO,rO""O for lT DEpT Counsel for the Respondent No.S : SR! MUKHERJEE, rep., sRr cADr pRAVEEN kunaan, Dy.so.cEN The Court made the following: ORDERfollowing: ORDER 1 THE [JUSTICE P'SAM ] rrrE HoNouRAB"u'fili"ICE [NAR.ING ][RAo]NANDIKONDA F2024WRITPETITIONN[o.335][300] ORDER' [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikoada)] Heard [Mr'Thanneru ][Chaitanya ][Kumar' ][learned ][counsel]for the [petitioner, ][Ms'J'sunitha' ][learned ][Junior ][Standing ][Counsel]forthelncomeTaxDepartmentforrespondentNos.lto4andMr. B. [Mukherjee, ][learned counsel representing the ][tlnion ][of India]for respondent [No'5' ][Perused ][the ][record'] This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148.A]and 148 [of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act' ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those ][have ][been ][passed ][under ][Section ][l4'7 ][of]the Act [which ][have been assailed'] This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is is [[a ][writ ][petition ]][[writ ][petition ]][[petition ]][[where ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][148.A]and 148 [of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act' ][1961 ][(for ][short ]['the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those ][have ][been ][passed ][under ][Section ][l4'7 ][of]the Act [which ][have been assailed'] 3. This writ [petition is ][being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of the]grounds, [that the ][notices ][issued ][under Section ][148,{ ][of ][the ][Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation ][ofproceedings under Section ][148 ][of]the Acf [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms](of the [amendment ][that ][was ][brought to ][the ][Income ][Ta1 ][Ac1 ][by ][way] I of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section 14gA ofthe Act as also under Section 14g oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4' The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Section l4g ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless maRner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDR{ REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedi,gs initiated under Section 14gA as arso 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 15lA ofthe Act 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 similarterms.\ The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of '[Q023) 156 raxmann com 178 (Telangana)l 1 Down the [[line, ][we find ][that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[we find ][that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[issue ][has ][also ][been]][[has ][also ][been]][[also ][been]][[been]] The contention contention of the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of '[Q023) 156 raxmann com 178 (Telangana)l 1 Down the [[line, ][we find ][that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[we find ][that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[issue ][has ][also ][been]][[has ][also ][been]][[also ][been]][[been]] 5. Down the [[line, ][we find ][that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[we find ][that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[that ][the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[the ][same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[same ][issue ][has ][also ][been]][[issue ][has ][also ][been]][[has ][also ][been]][[also ][been]][[been]]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e"]the [Bombay ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF INCOME [& ][OTHERS2' ][Gauhati ][High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM [vs' ][UNION OF INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]Haryana [High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of JATINDER ] vs. UNION [INDIA4, ][and Telangana ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRT VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [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 ][intemational]taxation and [central circle, ][High Court of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of GOVIND [vs' ] [OFFICER?']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] ' eozql464 [ITR 430 (Bom)]'llzoz+1 [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 (Gauhati)l]'lQO24b [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 (Punjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][tdxmann.com ][41 ][1 ][(Telangana)l]" 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][@ombay)l]' iZOZqj [1 ][65 ][taxmann.com ][1 ][1 ][3 (Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABITAI RADADIYA vs. INCOIT{E TAX OFFTCE&WARD 3(3Xr8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEW CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTIIER and batch of writ petitions,0 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 I0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought Ilom theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy'202q online Guj 4012"2025 SCC Online thar 2g7to 72023 [: ] :4984-DB l I I (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 ][filed ][arising ][out ][of ][the]same [issue ][being ][decided ][by ][various ][High ][Courts']7. To a [query ][being put to ][the ][learned 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]identicar [nature ][are ][being ][piled ][up ][before ][this ][Bench ][on daily ][basis]and [the pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][odl ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has arready [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 ][atdmore ][16 months ][have]lapsed, [till ][date' ][we ][do ][not ][f,rnd ][any remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken [by ][the Income ][Tax ][Department ][to ][take ][appropriate ][steps to]either [hold ][back ][issuance ][ofnotice ][under Section ][1484 ][and ][under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][by ][the ][jurisdictional ][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 l4gA 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 Act2021 .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 Kanukala Rqvindra Reddy (l supra), leamed Standingcounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wourdunnecessarily burden the lncome 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 thelearned Standing counser 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 beneflt 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,"/./ appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that proceedings ][under Section 148A]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-learned ][Standing]Counsel [that ][the said ][steps ][can ][only be ][taken ][at ][the ][level ][of ] as any [such ][steps ][would ][have ][to be taken Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited [to ][any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional High ][Courts'] appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring that proceedings ][under Section 148A]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-learned ][Standing]Counsel [that ][the said ][steps ][can ][only be ][taken ][at ][the ][level ][of ] 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 ][Court ][allowing ][writ ][petitions ][on ][the very ][same]issue' [The ][Income ][Tax ][authorities ][concerned are ][still ][even ][now in]2025 [also ][initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section [1514 ][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]of [this Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Red'dy]judgment (1 supra). [What ][is ][also surprising ][is ][the ][fact ][that ][though ][while]allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakula ][Ravindra]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 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 entitled tochallenge or raise the other legar 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 ofthe afolesaid liberty that this HighCourl had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshCourl had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless manner, themanner, theIncome Tax Depaftrnent wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet theIimitation that would other.wise 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 theIimitation that would other.wise 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]Revenue [and]-the which [would ][be ][advantageous and ][beneficial to ]would [be ][equally ][disadvantageous ][an][d 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\n ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)' ][is ][a]matter [of ][grave ][concem' ][The ][Income ][Tax ][Department's ][persistent]initiation [of ][fresh ][proceedings' disregarding ][the ][established ][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]appears [to ][be ][a' calculated ][move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]limitation [periods' ][rather ][than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established legal] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrativeefficiency and therespect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda 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 14g_A and l4g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps whichit is already seized ofor, atIeast the Income Tax Department should have fbund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings 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 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 I I has to [be taken, has ][to ][be ][taken ][for ][the ][whole ][oflndia' ][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 ][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]petition [are ][forcing ][the ][assessee ][to ][knock ][the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Court [resulting ][in frling ][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'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][which ][is ][seized ][of ][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 ][maj ][ority]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]\ 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vsASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXil, on an issue whether ir wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh couft of Bombay herd at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. [paridwa[a ]hedecision of this court ,n 'mmissioner ''nnt', [drawn ]of lncome [out ][attention ]Tax vs' smt'[to ]theGodavaridevi "o't ordinate Bench Sarafl2 of this cour as the recent decision of the co-or which one or us (r,,,,"" : : ?ililil:'J:J::ill, IrJ,l"the 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.r4, thecourt observed that the approach of the officiars of Revenue oftreating decisions .not being acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. In such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. i] Itr^r_Tt tZo,axmann.com [422 ][(Bombay)l]" [978J I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'' 120241 165 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Blmbay) 'o llOgZytaxmanr.com 16155 ELT 433 (SC) i] Itr^r_Tt tZo,axmann.com [422 ][(Bombay)l]" [978J I I3 ITR 589 (Bombay)'' 120241 165 taxmann.com 5gl/300 Taxman 452 (Blmbay) 'o llOgZytaxmanr.com 16155 ELT 433 (SC) "6. sri [Reddv ][is ][perhaps ][risht ][in ][saving ][t:::^tt':];";; [not ][actuated ][bY any mala rides ][tn];;;' o".o.n [*"''o**:-,: ]l"IT;::;" genuinelY [felt ][that ][the ][claim]",,'1""'"" tenable [and ][that' ][if ][it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]Butwhat [Sri Reddv overlooks is ][thatwe];;; [;"' ]are [not ][concerned ][here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise [of ][their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual];;;;"t but [with the iact that ][the ][officers'.in ]::::1":in their [conclusion' ][by-passed ][h^/o ][appellate orders ln]regard [to ][the ][same issue which were placed ][before]them' [one ][of the ][Collector (Appeals) and ][the ][other ][of]the [Tribunal' ][The Hlgh ][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 ][dlposing ][of ][the]luasijudicial [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 ]iurisdiction [of the ][Tribunal ][The principles ][of]iudicial [discipline ][require ][that ][the ][orders ][of the ][hiQher]appellate [authorlties 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 [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] harassment," rule is not followed, the reswitt onrv be undue;sult chaos in administrationof tax laws. "r;; 12. We have dealt with because it has been with,this asPect at some length,by the rearnedAdditionar Soricitor o"n.'nnut'"d llru [o, ][the Hish ]officers_ lt is clear that "",-j",:1"1"^::T::,,iljthoot"r't,ons of the cou(, seemingry ,"n," and Highapoarenflyunparatabre ,o ,n" *"r"nr.'unt' a rendency in revenue ;;lil #ll,lil",ffiI:become widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assessesto rhe Revenue *" ,,",l,Joll;"-,:"::;";::T:department should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations .of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in futLshourd be paid by the ".,,.,:::*il;#[i::"Jil:appellate authorities to thedisciptine and rhe need of the ",. [n,l,i"1''l?J"',":;:::::]higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour 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 ][vioiative of ][the] 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the fact that an endeavour 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 ][vioiative of ][the] Finance [Act, ][2020 ][and ][Finance Lct'2021' 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 [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(lsupra) ][shall ][however ][be ][subject ][to]the [outcome ][of ][the ][SLPs ][which ][were frled ][by ][the ][Income 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 dmely ][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 ][covorod ][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 and3g ofthe orderhereunder: .which, for ready reference, rs reproduced For all the aforesaid :6 rissued and ,n" ,r"-;;"t:^::1: ;:^"lont' [*t ][imPugned ]n6116gtDeparrment o, the respondenr-,. -.d [(v' ]rdurcr The notices nor sustainabieso issued the per se illegal, deserves Procedure adopted beingaside/quashed. ,o and are accordingty seio. orders " "on.j-" att the impusnedsettins orr.n;,;;:"-ouence, bv tne responoe;a*;;:""equential [orders passed]issued pursuant to the notices,n0.,. s""r,ol""^"€nt quashed and it is oro"r"o 'no '48 [would ][also ][get]" cordingly' The reason weare quashing the consequenti thar when tne initiation o-r.i:T::ffiJ:",:;.:,:procedurally wrong, the subrsequent orders also getsnullified automaticaly. 37. The preliminary objecfion raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthi6 very jurisdicrionat 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 raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexer0ising the powers under Articte 142 of theConstitution [of lndia, ][permitted ][the Revenue ][to ][proceed]llowingunder [the ][substituted ][provisions' ][and ][this ][Court ][a]e rightthe [petitions ][only ][on the ][procedural ][flaw' ][tl] conrerred [on the ][Rev.enue ].::i ffii:: J,"ir"J:: [J:]proceed [{urther ][if ][they ][so ][wa''' ]['-rn" ]of [Ashish]"u"" order [of ][the ][Supreme ][CoL]Agarwal' [suPra'] 38. Since the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, in the case of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexer0ising the powers under Articte 142 of theConstitution [of lndia, ][permitted ][the Revenue ][to ][proceed]llowingunder [the ][substituted ][provisions' ][and ][this ][Court ][a]e rightthe [petitions ][only ][on the ][procedural ][flaw' ][tl] conrerred [on the ][Rev.enue ].::i ffii:: J,"ir"J:: [J:]proceed [{urther ][if ][they ][so ][wa''' ]['-rn" ]of [Ashish]"u"" order [of ][the ][Supreme ][CoL]Agarwal' [suPra'] 18. [We ][would only ][further ][like to ][make ][observations ][that ][srnce]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]Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][ol ][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 [prefened ][by ][the Revenueagainst ][the decision ][of this]High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravinilru ][Reddy ][(1 ][supta)']This, [in other words, ][would ][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 ][lssue'] Accordingly, [[the ][instant ]][[instant ]][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in] 19.Accordingly, [[the ][instant ]][[instant ]]favour of the [assessee ][so ][far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][ts]concemed. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge [under ][Sections ][148-A ][and ][148 stands ][set aside/quashed'] \ The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insrmilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra to costs.Reddy (1 supra).There shall be no order as Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,stand closed. shall LS HIGH COURT DATED:28 tO4t2O2s ORDER WP.No.33530 of 2024 AL-LOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS //,/l)//4) :==:\(onTIiE S14t-.Q:a14ruEm [1\].:).i;. ,i*-r+ [.2']rO,./,,2