Order: (Per Llon'ble Sri Justice P.sam Koshy v. 'L(2023) [156 ][Taxrann.com ][Lt8 ][(Telan

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE WRIT PETITION NO: 12175 OF [2023] Between: Mr. Ravinder Reddy Pashya, S/o [Mr. ][P.Venkatanarsi Reddy, ][age-d ][46 ][y9-9rs,]Occ.Private Employee, C7o [Gayam ][Ramachandra, ][Opposite ][VnQ^O[i99,]Mattampally Post,' Mattampally [Mandal, Nalgonda District ][- ][508 ][225']Telangana ...PETITIONER AND 1The lncome Tax Officer [- ]Ward [1, ]Nalgonda, [lncome Tax ][Office, ][Near ][Rail]Under Bridge, Nalgonda, Nalgonda [District - ][508 ][001, ][Telangana.]Under Bridge, Nalgonda, Nalgonda [District - ][508 ][001, ][Telangana.] 2The Principal Chief Commissioner of [lncome ][Tax, Andhra ][Pradesh ][and]Telangana, Hyderabad Room [No. ][922,91h Floor, ] [Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3']AC Guards, Hyderabad [- ]500 004, Telangana.Telangana, Hyderabad Room [No. ][922,91h Floor, ] [Block, l.T.Towers, 10-2-3']AC Guards, Hyderabad [- ]500 004, Telangana. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol lhe Constitulion [of ][lndia ][praying that ][in ][the]circumstances stated in the affidavit [filed ][therewith, ][the ][High ][Court may ][be]pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate [Writ, ][Order ][or]Direction, declaring. a. the order passed by the 1st Respondent, [u/s ][148A(d) ][of ][the lncome ][Tax Act,]1961, dated 07.04.2023, bearing [and ][Notice ][No. ][ITBA/AST/Fi14BA|2O23']2411051933740(1), for the Assessment [Year ][2016 ][- ][17, and] b_ the notice issued by the 1st [Respondent, u/s 148 ][of ][the ][lncome Tax Act, ][1961,]dated 07.04.2023, bearing DIN [and ][Notice ][No. ][ITBAiAST/S/148_112023-]2411 051933888(1 ), for the Assessment [Year 2016 ][- ][17 as ][arbitrary, ][illegal,]barred by limitation, bad in law, [void-ab-initio, violative ][of ][the ][principles of natural] justice, apart from being violative of Articles 1a, 19(1Xg)and 265 of theConstitution of lndia and Sec 148A of the lncome TaxAct, ['1 ]961 , andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of [justice.]Constitution of lndia and Sec 148A of the lncome TaxAct, ['1 ]961 , andconsequently set aside the same in the interests of [justice.] lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased tostay all further proceedings, including any recovery, pursuant to the notice issuedby the 1st Respondent, u/s 148 of the lncome Tax Act, 1961 , dated 07 .O4.2023,bearing DIN and Notice No.: ITBA/ASTiS/148-112023-2411051933888('1 ), for theAssessment Year 2016 - 17, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V.PRASAD, Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAXThe Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.12175 of 2023 ORDER: (per llon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Karlikeya, lcamed counsel for thepetitioner and Mr.J.V.Prasad, leamed Senior Standing Counsel forthe lncome Tax Department for the respondents. Perused therecord 2. This is a writ petition rvhere the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,4and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for shoft'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTIKEYA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI J.V.PRASAD, Sr. SC FOR INCOME TAXThe Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.12175 of 2023 ORDER: (per llon'ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. A.V.A.Siva Karlikeya, lcamed counsel for thepetitioner and Mr.J.V.Prasad, leamed Senior Standing Counsel forthe lncome Tax Department for the respondents. Perused therecord 2. This is a writ petition rvhere the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148,4and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for shoft'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section l48A of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by wayof Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01 .04.2021 onwards, proceedings under Section 148,4 of the Act as also under Section [148 ]ol [the]Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a [facelcss]manner4. The contention of the petitioner is that thc issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act. 2021 i.e., [the]impugned notices under Section 1484. and Section 148 ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt [witl-r]and decided by this Court in the case of K,\NKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICI'Rr [decided]on 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed [and]the proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also under Section148 of tlie Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section 151A ofthe Act read with Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently follorvedin a large number of writ petitions which were allou'ed on similartelms 'l(2023) [156 ][taxrann.com ][lT8 ][(Telangana)l] 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanous High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courl in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES 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 international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. TNCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Courl of Himachal Pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI ' lzoz+1464 [430 (Bom)] ' [(2024) [156 taxrnann.corn ]478 [(Gauhati)]]" l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com I ][1 ][5 ][(Punjab ]& Ilaryana)l ' [2024) 167 taxmann.com [4 ]i I [(Telangana)]] " [2024) i66 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)] ' 12024) 165 taKnann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)l ' lzoz+1464 [430 (Bom)] ' [(2024) [156 taxrnann.corn ]478 [(Gauhati)]]" l(2024) [165 ][taxmann.com I ][1 ][5 ][(Punjab ]& Ilaryana)l ' [2024) 167 taxmann.com [4 ]i I [(Telangana)]] " [2024) i66 taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)] ' 12024) 165 taKnann.com 113 (Himachal Pradesh)l DAHYABHAT RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Courl in the case of SHYAMWARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand High Courl in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDtAe, Rajasthan High Cor-lt inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsro whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & OI{S(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 ofby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & OI{S(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 u,ritpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Courl in the case of HexawtreTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one u'hich has bccndecided by this Cour-t in the case of Kanakda Rovindra Reddy 82024 SCC Onlinc Gui 4012"2025 [Online ]Jhar287to 12023, [:4984-DIll] ..4 */ (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeaveI']etition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matterIn addition, therc are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 1 . To a query being put to the leamed 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 pendcncy is getting increased on matter which otherwischas ah'eady 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 havetapsed, till datc, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the lncome 1'ax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the rnajor High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of thc Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance AcL,2020 as also the Financc Acr 202 | 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, till datc, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the lncome 1'ax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the rnajor High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of thc Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance AcL,2020 as also the Financc Acr 202 | 9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this rvlit petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered bt' this Court inthe case of Kanakoln Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), lealned StandingCounsel for the lncome Tax Departmcnt contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Incorne Tax Depaflment where theywould be required to file equal number of SL,l)s before theFlon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It w,as also the contention ol theIearned Standing Counscl 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 beforc the Hon'bleSupreme Court and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interirn protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier quelyof this Courl as to why the Income Tax Departrnent have not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instruclions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section i48 of theAct are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions decided 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 Courls. 10. As a result of which, what we are lacing 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 sameISSUC['lhe ]Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionso1- Section 151,4 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 Kanakala Ravindru Reddy(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kunakakr RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has aiso protected the interest of the petitioners insofar as the liberly which was granted to the Revenue fbrinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Deparlment has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberry that was reseled for the Rer.'enue. On thecontrary,, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Courl as well as many other High Courls already held to bebad. insofar as the liberly which was granted to the Revenue fbrinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act, 2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Deparlment has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberry that was reseled for the Rer.'enue. On thecontrary,, they have been still sticking on to the stand, which thisHigh Courl as well as many other High Courls already held to bebad. 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time rneasure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Deparlment wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likeu,ise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Couft conflrrrsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax Depafiment would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in f"avour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDeparlment gets an extended period of time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Cour1, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undernines the principle ofjudicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a. calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced. approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rnterests.administrative efficiency and the respect for [judicial]pronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced. approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses rnterests. 13. Another aspect wl.rich 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 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in [a]faceless manner, at least till the Hon'bte Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found 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 furlher intimating tl.rc assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SI-P's aredecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Couft on the very same isstte.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been ablc to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at alt r' 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 Income Tax Deparlment contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itsthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which are under chailenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCoufi resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions 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. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Courl having been taken onpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCoufi resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions 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. Admittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Courl having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Deparlment. Yet, the authorities concemed 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 Tax Department ls showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A andState 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 Tax Department ls showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer r.r'hereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, TNCOME TAXrr, on an is'sue rvhether it wasjustifiableor-l 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 Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as tmder, viz., : "25. I\/r. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the jucigment 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 lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.'4, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. tt 11ZOZS1 [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'2 7t97811 [13 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]t3 TZOZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman ][452 (Bombay)]'o ]L9921taxmann.com [16155 ] [433 (SC)] tt 11ZOZS1 [170 ][taxmann.com ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'2 7t97811 [13 ] [589 ][(Bombay)]t3 TZOZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][581/300 Taxman ][452 (Bombay)]'o ]L9921taxmann.com [16155 ] [433 (SC)] "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actuated by any mala fides inofficers 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 correotness orotheruise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin 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, rightlycriticized 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 vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authoritiesThe 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.lurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles ofgenuinely 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 correotness orotheruise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin 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, rightlycriticized 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 vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authoritiesThe 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.lurisdiction 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 noappellate 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 competent court. lf this healthybeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the lea.nedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judiciatdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindrngon them." I 5. What is worrying this Bench more is the lact that ancndeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensurc not to gcncratclurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largcnumber of Itigh Courts all of whom have taken a cousistent standcndeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensurc not to gcncratclurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largcnumber of Itigh Courts all of whom have taken a cousistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of thc Finance Act,2020 and Finance Act,202l. 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 ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income ['I'ax]Department 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 timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otl.rerHigh 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 11 . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ofthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has alrcadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs .. ;,iee€:i ".xg 36,37 and,38 ofthe order which, for ready referencc. is rcproducedhereunder: 36 For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setasideiquashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondenlDepartment pursuant to the notrcesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified autcmatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petrtioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petrtioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 cf theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right / I i.ss;,;. 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 furthei like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKtnakola Ruvindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebelore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theafbresaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisI{igh Courl in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra).l'his, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of [this]writ petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupleureCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed inI'avour ol the assessee so far as the issue of [jurisdiction]ISconcerned. As. a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set aside/quashed. 'i-l- _ .i' The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insirnilar terms as have been passed by this High Courl in the case ofKankanalo Ravindro Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Conseqr.rently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed SD/-B,G.VYJAYANTHIf,SprbrnNr [REGtsTRAR]N\i I ,"sEcrloN oFFICER) //TRUE COPY// , To, The Income Tax Officer - Ward 1, Nalgonda, lncoHe Tax Office, Near RailUnder Bridge, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Distrlct - 508 001 , Telangana.Under Bridge, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Distrlct - 508 001 , Telangana. 1 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, Andhra pradesh andle-!a1gan9, [Hyderabad Room ][No. ][g22,9th ][Floor, ] [Btock, I.T.Towers, ][10-2-3,]AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.le-!a1gan9, [Hyderabad Room ][No. ][g22,9th ][Floor, ] [Btock, I.T.Towers, ][10-2-3,]AC Guards, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana. 3. One CC to SRI A.V.A.SIVA KARTTKEYA, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRI J.V.PRASAD, Sr. SC FOR TNCOME TAX tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies BSRYBSKb. HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER WP.No.12175 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION,WITHOUT COSTS {tdL[i.]t IIR[1;rl'S14,O-]c7.tJs,()2 7 [JUr{ ]zlELat* ()l:So