Of Finance Act, 2021 W.e.f., 0L .04.2021 Onwarrls. Proceedingsunder Section 1484. Ofthe Act As Also Under Section 148 Oftheact Ought To Have Also Been Issued An v. '[(2023) 156 Taxmann.com 178 (Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) t\iloNDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO: 36328 [2024] Between: Sutherland Healthcare Solutions [Private Limited, ] [Company ][lncorporated]Under The Laws of lndia and [Having ][its ][office ][at ][sth floor' ][Rajapushpa]Summit, Nanakramguda [Road, ][Financial ][District, ][Hyderabad, ][Rangareddy]Telangana 500008. Represented [by ][lts ][authorised signatory ][Shri ][Rambabu]Maddu ...PETITIONER AND 1Assistant Commissioner of lncome [Tax, ][Circle ][- 3(1)' Signature towers, ][opp.]Botanical Garden, Hyderabad, [Telangana, ][500084.]Botanical Garden, Hyderabad, [Telangana, ][500084.]2The Union of India, Through the [Secretary, Ministry of ][Finance, ][Government]of lndia, North Block, New Delhi [- ][110 ]001 of lndia, North Block, New Delhi [- ][110 ]001 2 ...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of [the constitutron ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the [affidavit ][filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court ][may ][be]pleased to issue writ in the nature [of ][certiorari ][or ][any ][other ][appropriate ][writ,]order or direction [quashing ][lmpugned ][notlce ][dated ][3010812024 ][issued ][by]No. ['l ]under section ['148 ][and ][lmpugned Order ][dated ][30.08.2024]Respondent passed under 14SA(d) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 [in ][relation ][to ][Assessment]Year 2018-19, by [holding ]the [same ]to [be void, ][illegal, ][and ][contrary ][to ][the]provisions of lncome-tax Act lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under [Section ]['1 ][51 CPC ][praying ][that ][in the ][circumstances ][stated]in the affidavit filed [in ][support ][of the ][petition, ][the ][High ][court ][may ][be ][pleased ][to]direction staying all [further ][proceedings pursuant ][to/ in ][consequence ][to] impugned order under section 148A(d) dated 30.O8.24 [and ][rmpugned ][notice]under section 148 dated 30.08.24 in relation [to ][Assessmetrt Year ][2018-19.] Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATRAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: M/s. BOK,ARO [REDDY, ][Jr. ] INCOME TAXCounsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI B.MUKHERJEE, GOVT. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOT]RABLE NANDIKONDAWRIT PETITION No.36328 [2024] ORDER, [(per ]Hon'ble [Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. Venkatram [Reddy ][Mantur, ][learned counsel ][for]the petitioner, Ms. [B.Sapna ][Reddy, ][leamed ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel for the [[ncome ][Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][No ][1 ][and]Mr. B. Mukherjee, leamed [counsel representing the ][Union ][of ][India]for respondent No.2 . [Perused the ][record.] 2. This is a writ [petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged to the notices [which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][l48A]and 148 of the [lncome ][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]grounds, that the notices issued [under Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation of ][proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing Offlrcer, whereas ][in ][terms]of the [amendment ][that ][was ][brought ][to ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 0l .04.2021 onwarrls. proceedingsunder Section 1484. ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmannel'. 3. This writ petition is being [taken up today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices issued [under Section ][l48A ][of ][the ][Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation of ][proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act [by ][the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing Offlrcer, whereas ][in ][terms]of the [amendment ][that ][was ][brought ][to ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by ][way] of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 0l .04.2021 onwarrls. proceedingsunder Section 1484. ofthe Act as also under Section 148 oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmannel'. 4. l'he contention of the petitioner is thar the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Sectior 148 ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manncr, have already bccn dcalt withand decided by this Court in the case of ['K,{NKANALA]RAVINDRA REDDY vs. TNCOME-TAX OFIICERI decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions w,jre allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l48A as alsrt undcr Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of S,ection l51A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.2t)22. The saidjudgrnent passed by this Court has also been subseqrrently,lollowedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. '[(2023) 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana)] ) 5. Down the line, we find that the same issud has also,beendecided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGTES LTD., vS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ]DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of intemational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHTN ANILKUMAR SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 'lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'l(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)l]" [(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punjab ][& ][Haryana)]] ' 12024) [1 ][67 taxmann.com ][41 1 ][(Telangana)l] " 12024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)l] '12024) [165 ][taxmann.com ][113 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFTCER,WARD 3(3)(08, Jharkand High Court in the ceLse of SHYAMSUNDAR 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 olGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF TNDIA & 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 10 rvritpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary 6lround that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the cast: of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one v,,hich has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakula Ravindra Reddy *2024 scc online Guj 4012' [2025 ]SCC Onlinb Jhar 287'o 72023 [: ] [: ][49 ][84-DBl] (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.ln addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. *2024 scc online Guj 4012' [2025 ]SCC Onlinb Jhar 287'o 72023 [: ] [: ][49 ][84-DBl] (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.ln addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame 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 interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Depa(ment to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions by all the rnajor High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o [- ]the Act ininitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o [- ]the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the ncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance Lct202l9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Coun inthe casc of Kunakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), lt:arned StandingCounsel for the Incorne Tax Department contends t[at those would9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this Coun inthe casc of Kunakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), lt:arned StandingCounsel for the Incorne Tax Department contends t[at those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departn-re nt where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening thewould 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 t,e caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending befor: the Hon'bleleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice would t,e caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending befor: the Hon'bleSupremc 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 comeof 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 theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can onlybe taken at the [level of CBDT]as any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited 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 theAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can onlybe taken at the [level of CBDT]as any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep [increase ]oflitigation 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 concemed are still [even now in]2025 also initiating 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 ][pited ]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(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ [petitions ]in the case of Kanakula [Ravindra]Reddy [(1 ]supra), the [Division ][Bench ]while reserving [the ][right ]ofthe Revenue, [has also ][protected ]the [interest ]of [the ][petitioners]I insofui es rh;; i.ioe-r1., rvh,:ii was granted to tiLe F.evenuc i,rr:initiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as arnended by the Financc Act. 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the R evenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Rer.,enue. On thecontrary,, they have been stilI sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courts already held to bebad 1 1. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time lneasure in a facele:;s manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage tf the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. I-ikeu,ise, 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 rhe other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, th,: Income Tax\I 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 beneficiai [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 [Ravindru ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of grave concern. 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 questitns about theadministrative effrciency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has a lready provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revelue's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have bcen realized by the Income Tax Deparlment itself andshould havc lbund out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-A and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manncr, at lcast till the Hon'ble Supreme (lourt decide thetwelve hundred ( I 200) odd SLPs which it is alreadl seized of or, atleast the lncome Tax Department should have f,tund out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLP's aredecided by thc Hon'ble Supreme Court on the very sarne issue.This again, the Income 1-ax Deparlment, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a d,:cision if at allt/ has to be taken, has to [be ][taken ][for ][the whole ][of ][India, ][and ][which]otherwise l.ras 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 [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 ][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 filing of [hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions which ][in]the long run not only affects [the disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also consumes substantial time of [the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again on [daily ][basis. Admittedly, ][in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][having ][been taken ][on]many 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 ][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] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer rvhereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. .ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME l'AX'r, on an issu: whether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Defrartmcnt in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating auth()rity only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divisio I Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as rrnder, viz., : "25. I\,,1r. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out atte rtion to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome lax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Saraf'2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) t-td. v. lTOl3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a mem ter, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the Hrgh Court would not rnean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Suprer-ne Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporatiorr Ltd.r4, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable" was critic zed by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are lhe relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. tl 11ZOZS; [170 ][raxrnann.com 422 ][(Bombay)l]" 1t9787113 [589 ][(Bombay)]" IZOZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman ][452 ][(Bomhay)] 'o ltggZl [taxrnann.com ][16/55 ] [433 (SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by [any ][mala fides ][in]officers were not actuated by [any ][mala fides ][in]passing the impugned orders. They [perhaps]genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee [was ][not]tenable and that, if it was accepted, [the ][Revenue]would suffer. But what Sri Reddy [overlooks is that ][we]are not concerned here [with ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise of 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 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]ludicial [discipline require ][that the ][orders ][of ][the ][higher]appellate authorities should [be ][followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate [authorities. The ][mere ][fact ][that the]order of the [appellate ][authority ][is ][not "acceptable' ][to]the department - [in itself ][an objectionable phrase ]-and is the 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]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]regard to the same issue which were [placed ][before]them, one of the [Collector (Appeals) and ][the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. The [High Court ][has, ][in ][our view, ][rightly]criticized this conduct of the [Assistant ][Collectors ][and]the harassment to [the assessee caused by ][the ][failure]of these officers to [give ]effect to [the ][orders ][of]authorities higher [to ][them in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy. ][lt]cannot be too vehemently [emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance that, in [disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers [are]bound by the decisions of the [appellate ][authorities.]The order of the Appellte [Collector ][is ][binding ][on ][the]Assistant Collectors working [within ][his ].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]ludicial [discipline require ][that the ][orders ][of ][the ][higher]appellate authorities should [be ][followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate [authorities. The ][mere ][fact ][that the]order of the [appellate ][authority ][is ][not "acceptable' ][to]the department - [in itself ][an objectionable phrase ]-and is the 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 admini:itrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some ength,because it has been suggested by the loar.ledAdditional Solicitor General that the obsen,ationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of thr: HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and appitrentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended t, curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allovred tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any trenefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations n 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 jrrd,cialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are b ndrngon them." I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is thr: fact 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 .-\ Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to [protect]the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [juncture, ]if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the [judgment ]rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (1 supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which rvere filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timety disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter 17. So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs 36, 37 trnd 38 of the order which, lor ready referenc e, is reproducedhereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugn(rd noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustarnable.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 th? noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The r€,ason weare quashing the consequential order is on the t)rircioleslhat when the initiation of the proceedings iself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullifled automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by lhe peritioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugne I noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petition3r' whrchstands reserved to be raised and contended n anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime reasureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstilution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on lhe [procedural ]flaw, tre right 37. The preliminary objection raised by lhe peritioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugne I noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petition3r' whrchstands reserved to be raised and contended n anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime reasureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstilution of lndia, [permitted ]the Revenue to [proceed]under the substituted [provisions, ]and this Court allowingthe petitions only on lhe [procedural ]flaw, tre right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved [to]proceed fu(her if they so want from the stage of theorder 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 [petition, ]conscious ofthe 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 ][of ][2024,]preferred by the Income Tax Depaftment, 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 ][of ][this]High Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy [(l ][supra).]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 [issue.] 19. Accordingly, the instant writ [petition ]stands [allowed]tnfavour of the assessee so far as the [issue ]of [jurisdiction]rsconcerned. As'a consequence, the [impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under Sections 148-4. and [148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed'] The consequential ori;rs, i, arry, also stand set aside/quashe;t 1,, similar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shal be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pendir g. if any, shall stand closed. SD/.A. PRATHIMAASSISTANTREPISTRAR ,///TRUE COPY'/,/I),{SECION OFFICERt To'l . Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle - 3(1), Sittnature lowers, opp.Botanical Garden, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500084.'l . Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle - 3(1), Sittnature lowers, opp.Botanical Garden, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500084.2. The Secretary, Union of lndia, Ivlinistry of Finance, Gc,vernment of lndia, NorthBlock. New Delhi - 1 10 001Block. New Delhi - 1 10 0013. One CC to SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR, Advocate 4. One CC to M/s BOKARO SAPNA REDDY, Jr. SC FOR TNCOI\,4E TAX 5. One CC to SRI B MUKHERJEE, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT 5. One CC to SRI B MUKHERJEE, SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT 6. Two CD CopiesPSKooGJP HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.36328 o12024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS {a ---.=-=:=-=-.I' [-, ]1 t'r'- [s ]1., "(''---lla ''' 'iaf_".')>l.)O9sEPffi'l,!-,/,,).:' /'\..,,,..::. .. -- [-]