Or ][The]Petitioner And Mr.vijay K [Punna, ][Learned ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel Lor The [Income ][Tax ][Department Appearing ][For ][The]Respondents. Perused [ v. The Contention Contention Of The Petitioner The Petitioner Petitioner Is Thrrt The Issue Ofthrrt The Issue Ofthe Issue Ofissue Of

IN THE HIGH [THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAO](SPecial Original [Jurisdiction)]MONDAY, TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA] WRIT PETITIONN[o'. ][19229 ][0F ][202s] Between: tr,1r Minhaiuddin, S/o. [Khaja ][Lateefuddin ][Aged ][38 ]-years' [Occ ][R/o ][12- ][2790166']Ailil;;;;;'dbloni, [rr,teohipatna ][m, ][Hvd ][erabad ][- ][5000 28] ...PETITIONER AND lncomeTaxOfficer,lntemationalTaxation-1'Hyderabad6thfloor'C-Block'lTio*eo, 10- 2- [3, AC ][Guards, ][HYderabad'] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Article 226 ][of ][the ][Constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith.theHighCourtmaybepleased to issue a [writ, ][order ][or direction' ][more ][particularly ][in the nature of writ ][of]mandamus declaring ' [order ][u/s ][148A(d ][) ][dated ][31 ][03- ][2024 ][bearing]ITBfuAST/Fi14}NN23.2411063745439(1),theNoticeu/s.148dated31.03-2024 bearing ITBA/AST/S/148 [1t2O23- ][2411063745454(1) ][and ][the ][draft]assessment orderunder Section [144C ][dated 10- ][03- ][2025 ][bearing ] lTBfuAsT/F/144c12o24-2511o74251930(1)anditsconsequentassessmentorderdated 27- 05- [2025 ][bearing ] [ITBA/ASTlst147l2O25- 26/1076491340(1)' ][as]being void, [illegal' ][.arbitrary, ][without iurisdiction' violate ][of ][Article 14 ][of ][the]Constitution [of lndia and consequently ][set aside ][the ][same-] IA NO: 10F 2025 PetitionunderSectionlslCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedinthe affidavit filed [in ][support ][of ][the ][petition' the ][High ][C'ou ][rt may ][be ][pleased ][to ][stay] all further proceedings incruding initiation oF penalty pro<;eedings and coflection oftax pursuant to the assessment order dated 27- OS_ 2O2S bearing DINITBA/ASTiS/1 4 7 I 2025- 26t 1 07 6491340(1). Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK counsel for the Respondents: SRr vlJHAy K PUNNA (s;ENroR sc FoR rrD) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No[.19229 ][of2025] ORDER: [(per ]Hon'ble [Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][Nandikonda)] Heard Mr.M'Naga [Deepak, ][Ieamed counsel ][lor ][the]petitioner and Mr.Vijay K [Punna, ][learned ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel lor the [Income ][Tax ][Department appearing ][for ][the]respondents. Perused [the record.] 2. This is a writ [petition where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][eithcr]chatlenged to the [notices ][which were ][issued ][under ][Section ][i48A]and I48 of the [Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for shoft'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assesslnent orders [those have been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][ol']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 ['[ct ]by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms])ol the amendment [that was ][brought to the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way]of Finance Act, [2021 ][w.e.f., 01.04'2021 ][oowards, ][proceedings]..,. 2. This is a writ [petition where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][eithcr]chatlenged to the [notices ][which were ][issued ][under ][Section ][i48A]and I48 of the [Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for shoft'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assesslnent orders [those have been ][passed ][under ][Section ][147 ][ol']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 ['[ct ]by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer, ][whereas ][in ][terms])ol the amendment [that was ][brought to the ][Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way]of Finance Act, [2021 ][w.e.f., 01.04'2021 ][oowards, ][proceedings]..,. under Section l4gA of the Act as also under Ser:tion I 4g of theAct ought tc have also been issued and proceedr:d in a facelessmanner.4. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is thrrt the issue ofthrrt the issue ofthe issue ofissue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Ar.:t, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 14gA and Sectirtr: l4g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have alreadl.been dealt withand decided by this Courl iir the case of KANI(ANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions \v(:.re allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also unf,e1 Section148 of the Ac1 vvere held to bc bad rvith consequenti,rl reliefs on thegrourd o|it being in vioration of the provisions of Sr:ction 151A ofthe Act read with Norificarion 18/2022 dated,29.03.2,.022. The said,judgment passed by this Court has also been subseq uently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were auor'ed on similartenns. The contention contention of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is thrrt the issue ofthrrt the issue ofthe issue ofissue of '[(2023) 156 raxmann.co-]nr{ 78 (Telangana)l 5. Down the [ine, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERSz, Gauhati High Court in the caseol RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIAT, Punjab andHaryana High Courl in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vS. DEPU.I.YCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intematior.raltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER?,Gujarat High Courl in the case of MANSUKIIBHAI ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)] ' l(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)l] ^ 1Q024) 165 taxmann.corn [1 ]15 [(Punjab ]& Haryana)l ' [2024) [167 ]taxrnarm.com [4l ][l.{Telangana)]] " [2024) [166 taxr.nann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] ' 12024) 165 taxmann.com I l3 [(Himachal ]Pradesh)l I ' lzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)] ' l(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 [(Gauhati)l] ^ 1Q024) 165 taxmann.corn [1 ]15 [(Punjab ]& Haryana)l ' [2024) [167 ]taxrnarm.com [4l ][l.{Telangana)]] " [2024) [166 taxr.nann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)]] ' 12024) 165 taxmann.com I l3 [(Himachal ]Pradesh)l I DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME I'1!X OFFICER,,WARD 3(3Xr8, Jharkand High Courr in the r;ar;e of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan IJigh Courr inthe case of SI{ARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. L\COME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ pr:tirionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Simitar views have i:lso been takenby the Division Bench ol- Calcutta l{igh Court ;n the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF TNDIA & ORS(M.A.T | 690 ot 2023),decided on 25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been dcc ded by a largenumber of Fligh Courts, we are still confi.onted wirh large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis rangirrg between 5 to 10 writpetitions. ['lhat ]upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary grround that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one vifrich has been( decided by this court in the case or Kattakara Ravinfiy11 pnr1r1, 82024 SCC Online Guj 4012" 2025 SCC Onl,inc llrar 2g7I o 12023 [: ][I{J-JD ]:4984- DI} | . .(l -suprd=.ha$.",heqo*suhi,ep-ted-ts.sh4llilgE'-rs^a*Ssesiel.Lp-qxe.=.,.,-.-'--..Petition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCouft and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matterIn 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 llon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesenlatters pending befbrc it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are bcing piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dcalt 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 havetapsed, titl date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the lncome 1'ax Department to take appropriate steps toeithcr hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underSection 148 ol the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concerned in the teeth of series of decisions -) -) by all the rnaj or High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of r l.r,-: Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o l thc Act ininitiating proceedings under Section l48A of r l.r,-: Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 o l thc Act incontravention to the amendments brought into thc lncome Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finan. c Act 2021 .9. Upon a query beiug put as to why can't th s rvrit petition bepursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finan. c Act 2021 .9. Upon a query beiug put as to why can't th s rvrit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the dccision rendcred 11 this Coufi inthe case of Kanokalo Ravindra Reddy (1 srrpra), l,'arned StanciingCounsel for the Incorne Tax Deparlment contends rlrat those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income I'ax Departnr,'nt l,trere theywould be required to file equal numbel of S I,s before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it rvould be furlhi:r burdcning thewould be required to file equal numbel of S I,s before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it rvould be furlhi:r burdcning theexchequer of the Union ol India. It was also thc contention of theleamed Standing Counsel that no prejudice woulct rc caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kcpt pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending belo e the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is a rcady enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on I re earlier queryof this Court as to why the lncome Tax DepartmenL havc not comeinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kcpt pendingtill the finalization of the SLPs pending belo e the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is a rcady enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on I re earlier queryof this Court as to why the lncome Tax DepartmenL havc not comeout with a Inechanism to issue appropriate instrucrions or to take L:\ appropnate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section l4gAof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 14g of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas 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 w,e are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section l5 I A of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of l{anaksla Ravindra Reddy( I supra). whar is arso surprising is the ract that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakula RavindruReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reseling the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the libetty which [was ][granted ][to ][thr: ][Revenue ][for]initiating fresh proceedings strictly [in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]provisions of the Act, as amended [by ][the ][Finance' ]'\ct. [2020 ][and]the Finance Act,2O2l. The [petitioner ][assessee ][wou ][k' ][he ][entitled to]challenge or raise the other legal [objections ][if ][the ][R.ei'enue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. The Department [has made ][ro ][endcavour ][in]availing the said liberty that [was ][reserrred ][for ][the ][R-c,'enue ][On ][the]contrary, they have been stiii [sticking ][on to ][the ][stz ][n'J, ][which ][this]High Court as well as many [other ][High ][Courts alrcady held ][to ][be]bad. insofar as the libetty which [was ][granted ][to ][thr: ][Revenue ][for]initiating fresh proceedings strictly [in ][accordance ][with ][the ][amended]provisions of the Act, as amended [by ][the ][Finance' ]'\ct. [2020 ][and]the Finance Act,2O2l. The [petitioner ][assessee ][wou ][k' ][he ][entitled to]challenge or raise the other legal [objections ][if ][the ][R.ei'enue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. The Department [has made ][ro ][endcavour ][in]availing the said liberty that [was ][reserrred ][for ][the ][R-c,'enue ][On ][the]contrary, they have been stiii [sticking ][on to ][the ][stz ][n'J, ][which ][this]High Court as well as many [other ][High ][Courts alrcady held ][to ][be]bad. I 1. [t appears that because [ol ][the aforesaid ][tibert' ][that ][this F{igh]Court had granted [permitting ][the ][Reveuue ][for ][irritiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time measure [in a ][facel':trs ][mannet, ][the]Income Tax Department [wants ][to ][take ][advantage' ][:rf ][the ][same ][by]protracting these proceedings which [would ][enable ][tl'em ][to ][meet ][the]timitation that would otherwise [come ][in ][the ][way. ][-,ikewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is kept pending for [a ][considerable ][lonp ][period ][of ][time]and finally at a later stage if [the ][Hon'ble ][Supremt: ][Coufi ][confir'ms]the decision taken by this High [Couft ][as ][also ][bi' ][Lhe ][other High]Courts in which the SLPs [are ]sti- -r:-^ rire Income Tax \ .-\ \ Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and benehcial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so f_ar as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and benehcial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so f_ar as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings.proceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despite the clear precedent set in Konakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Depadment,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 peritions piling up on rhe same issue. Thisdeliberate approacl.r not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme court,s decision onpending gl-ps while continuingtoinitiate lresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move tobuy time and circumventIimitation periods,rather than adhering to the established legal ) position. Such conduct [raises ][serious ][questior ][r ][about ][the]aclministrative efficiency [and ][the ][respect ][lor ][judicial]pronouncements, [parlicularly ][when ][this Court ][has ][a1r:ady ][provided]a balance<l approach [by ][preserving both ][the ][Revenr ][te's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. ) position. Such conduct [raises ][serious ][questior ][r ][about ][the]aclministrative efficiency [and ][the ][respect ][lor ][judicial]pronouncements, [parlicularly ][when ][this Court ][has ][a1r:ady ][provided]a balance<l approach [by ][preserving both ][the ][Revenr ][te's ][rights ][and]assesses interests. 13. Another [aspect ][which ][needs ][to ][be ][considerecl ][s ][that ][in ][laci ][it]sl.rould have been [realized by the Incorne ][Tax ][Deparl ][nent itsell ][and]strould have found [out ][via ][media ][in ][cnsuring ][!lr.rt ][p'r'oct-'edings]under Sections [148-A and ][148 should ][not ][have bt:cn issued ][ir.r ][a]laceless manner, [at least ][till ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][r- ][ouft ][decide the]trvelve hundred [(1200) ][odd SLPs ][which ][it ][is ][alread-v ][seized ][of ][or' ][at]least the Income [Tax ][Dep'artment ][should ][have ][fi ]'und [oLtt ][sorne]remedial steps [to ][ensure ][that ][wherever ][the ][atrthc:ities ][intend ][to]initiate proceedings [under ][Sections 148-A ][and ][14[i ][otl.rer ][than ][in ][a]f'aceless manner, [the ][proceedings ][should ][havc ][been ][deferred]without precipitating [the matter further intimating' ][l ][lre assessee ][that]initiate [appropriate ][proceedings ][only ][aft''r ][the ][SLP's ][are]they shalt decided by the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Courl ][on ][the ][r ][-'ry ][samc issue']This again, the Income [Tax ][Departmerrt, ][has ][not ][t'er-'ir ][ablc ][to ][give ][a']convincing reply, [except ][for ][the fact that ][such a ]'lecision [if ][at ][all]I'\.r\\ has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direct Taxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the Incorne Tax Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling ro reduce itsthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling ro reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetrtron are forcing the assessec to knock [he doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of ncu, writ pctitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Adrnittcdly, in spite of thealso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Adrnittcdly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken ontnany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. yet, the authorities ccncemed at theIncome Tax Department. yet, the authorities ccncemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income [.fax ]of High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income [.fax ]Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices r -.:.,,ously under Sections l4g_A and 148 through the [julisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][wltereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the faceless [manner.] 14. In the case of BANK [vs' ][ASSISTAn-T]COMMISSIONER, [INCOME TAXrr, ][on an ][issutr ][rvhcther ][it ][rvas].justifiable [on ][the ][part ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Del)rrrtrllcttt ][it.t ][I.tot]au order [passed ][by the ][adjudicating ][autholitv ][on[1' ][on ][thc]fbllorving ground that the appeals are [pending, the ][Divisit'r ][llench ][ol ][the]High Cour-t oi- tsombay [held ][at paragraph No'2-< ][as ][tr ]'<!cr-' [r'iz ]' : 148 through the [julisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer ][wltereas ][it ][ought]to have been only in the faceless [manner.] 14. In the case of BANK [vs' ][ASSISTAn-T]COMMISSIONER, [INCOME TAXrr, ][on an ][issutr ][rvhcther ][it ][rvas].justifiable [on ][the ][part ][of ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Del)rrrtrllcttt ][it.t ][I.tot]au order [passed ][by the ][adjudicating ][autholitv ][on[1' ][on ][thc]fbllorving ground that the appeals are [pending, the ][Divisit'r ][llench ][ol ][the]High Cour-t oi- tsombay [held ][at paragraph No'2-< ][as ][tr ]'<!cr-' [r'iz ]' : "25 Mr Pariclwalla has rightly [drawn ][out ][atter ][tion ][to ][the]dectsion of this Court in [Commissioner ][of ][lncome ][Tax ][vs' ][Smt']Godavaridevi Saraf'2 as also [the ][recent ][decisicn ][of ][the ][co-]ordinate Bench of [this ]Court [in Samp ][Furniture (P) ][t ][td' ][v ][lTO13]of which one of us [(Justice ][G.S. ][Kulkarni) ][was ][a ][metnl:'er' wheretn]the Court categorically observed [that ][the ][Revenur: ][having ][not]"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would nol [rrrean ][lhat ][trll]the same is set aside [in a manner known ][to ][law, it ][urcrrld ][loose ][tts]bindrng force. Referrtng to [the ][decision ][of ][the ][Supre ][-ne ][Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi [Finance ][Corporatio:r ][Ltd'o' ][the]Courl observed that the approach [of ][the ][officials ][of ][Revenue ][of]treating decisions being ['not ][acceptable" ][was ][crit ][(: ][zed ][by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such [decision, following ][are ][ll-re relevant]observations made by [the Supreme ][Court.] ' 11zozs1 [170 ][taxnlann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l] ' [1 ][te ][zal ][t ][i ..t ][I'rR ][5 ][89 ][(Bornbay)] ' IZOZ+1 [165 ][taxrnann.corn ][581/3O0 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Ilorl ][trtLy)] 1telZlta\mann.com 16/55 ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any faclualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachlngin their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, righ ycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemenfly emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the jurisdiclion of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not [,,acceptable,, ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase _and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a comoetent court. lf this healthy rule is nol followed, the result will only [be ][utrdue]harassment to assesses anci chaos in [administl ation]of tax laws. rule is nol followed, the result will only [be ][utrdue]harassment to assesses anci chaos in [administl ation]of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect [at ][some ][l€'ngth']because it has been suggested by the [le:irned]Additional Solicitor General that the [observi)tions]made by the High Court, have been harsh [ln ][the]officers. lt is clear that the observations [of ][the ][High]Cou(, seemingly vehement, and [appe-ently]unpalatable to the Revenue, are only [intended ][k: ][curb]a tendency in i'evenue rnatte!'s which, [if ][allotted ][to]become widespread, could result in [considr:'rable]harassment to the assesses-public without [any t'enefit]to the Revenue We wouid iike to [say ][thi,t ][the]department should take these observations [irr ][the]proper spirit. The observations of the Higl' [Court]should be kept in mind in future and the [utmost ][r'3gard]should be paid by the adiudicating [authorities ][ald ][lhe]appellate authorities to the requirements [of ][j.rdicial]discipline and the need for [giving ]effect [to ][the ][:)rders]of the higher appellate authorities [which ][are ][t ][ncjing]on tircn-r." 15. What is worrying this Bench more [is ][th: ][fact ][that ][an]endeavour is being lnade vhole heartedly [to ][ensul'e ][not ][to ][generate]lurther litigatiorl on issues which have been [laid ][tc' rest ][by ][a large]number of High Courts all of ';vhom have [taken ][a ][.ronsistent ][stand]that the action ol the [ncorne Tax Department [being ][violative ][ol ][Lhe] Finance Ac[ 2020 and Finance Act, 2OZl. Now, in order to protectthe 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 ofKtnkanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDeparlrnent and which is pending consideration before the I-Ion,bleS Lrprerne Court. t6. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeol- uraltels which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand u,hich stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherIligh 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 concerned, we are of thc considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has already bcen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs)) 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready referenc::, is reproducedheleunder: 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugnerj notieesissued and the proceedings drawn by the res condent-Department is neither tenable, nor sur;tainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adcp:ed beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accor(lingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the i'npugnedorders [gettlng ]quashed, the consequential order:r [passed]by the respondent-Department pursuant to th:) noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would :rlso getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The r(|ason weare quashing the consequential order is on the rrinciplesrt^-...,L^- r,rrd( wrrcrr lrrE rlllr.rdu\Jrr ur (lrc pl(,uceulligo i,5cii --^ i.^^r....^^vrr<isprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders i:lso getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very lurisdictional issue. Since the impugrrerJ noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed l'u ther anddecide the olher rssues raised by the petitior which=r stands reserved to be raised and contendod in anappropriate proceedrngs. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very lurisdictional issue. Since the impugrrerJ noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed l'u ther anddecide the olher rssues raised by the petitior which=r stands reserved to be raised and contendod in anappropriate proceedrngs. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra. as a onetime measureexercrsing the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue tc proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Courl allowing\the petitions only on the-procedural flaw, the right conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious oFthe lact that the earlier order of this I{igh Court in the case ofKanokala Rtvintlra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebelorc 1he Hon'ble Suprcme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,prc {'erred b1, ttre lrrcome I'ax Department, we make it clear Lhatallor'ving o[ thc instant writ petition is subject to outcome of thealorcsaid SL.P prelcrred by the Revenue against the decision of thisl{igtr Court in the case of Konakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra)[-his, in other words, rvould mean that either of the parties, il the1,so want, rnay move alr appropriate petition seeking revival ol thiswrit petition in tl're light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourl in thc pcnding SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed inlavour of thc assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictiontsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallengc uuder Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed--'i .?/ The consequential orders, i[ any, also stand sei aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High (_ <:,ur1 in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shrr.ll be no order asto costs. Consequently, misce[laneous petitions pending, it any, sha[stand closed. SD/.T. VIJAY KUMARTY REGTSTRARr)+unl\SECTION OFFICER\J /ITRUE COPY// \To,1. The lncome Tax Officer, lntematronat Taxation - t \Hyderabad 6th floor, C-Block, lT Towers, 10- ?-3, AC Guards. Hyderabad." 2. One CC to SRI fi/.NAGA DEEPAK. Advocate. [OPUC 3. One CC to SRI VUHAY K PUNNA (SENIOR SC FOII [rrD). ] 4. Two CD Copies- BSKGJPv \p HIGH COURT DATED:07107t2025 ORDERWP.No.I9229 ot ZO2S ALLOWING THE WRIT PETTTIONWITHOUT COSTS \('1:it2$254..' I\