Pratap Rai v. Corum

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA CWP No. 15368 of 2024 Date of decision: 23.9. 2025 Pratap Rai. ...Petitioner. Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward Parwanoo and others. …Respondents. Corum Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja), Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Petitioner. Mr.Goverdhan Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents:Mr.Neeraj Sharma and Mr.Ishan Kashyap,Advocates for respondents No. 1 to 3. Ms.Vandna Misra, Central GovernmentCounsel, for respondent No. 4. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Issue notice. Mr.Neeraj Sharma, Advocate and Ms.VandnaMisra, Central Government Counsel, waive service and accept notice onbehalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4, respecively. 2.The instant petition has been filed for grant of the followingsubstantive relief:- 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes Yes “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ in thenature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order ordirection, thereby quashing/setting aside the impugned noticeunder Section 148 dated 20.03.2024, ANNEXURE P-2, andNotice under Section 142(1) Annexure P-5 being illegal, withoutjurisdiction, against the procedure and further based on theillegal sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 and all proceedings/actions consequent thereto.”nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order ordirection, thereby quashing/setting aside the impugned noticeunder Section 148 dated 20.03.2024, ANNEXURE P-2, andNotice under Section 142(1) Annexure P-5 being illegal, withoutjurisdiction, against the procedure and further based on theillegal sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Income TaxAct, 1961 and all proceedings/actions consequent thereto.” 3.The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, wherebythe legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148,dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) is already under consideration beforethe Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (c) No. 17040/2024, titled asThe Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr.Reddy Laboratories Ltd. with connected matters. 4. Since the issue involved in this petition is already pendingconsideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, keeping inview the judicial discipline, we refrain ourselves from giving our opinionwith respect to impugned notice under Section 148, dated 20.03.2024(Annexure P-2), as assailed in this petition. We direct that the presentpetition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court and the decision thereto, shall be binding on this casealso. 5. The continuity of proceedings before the competentauthority, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’bleSupreme Court is bound to lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to stay such proceedings till the time issue is finallydecided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ordered accordingly. 6. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also thepending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. 23[rd] September, 2025(Keshav) (Sushil Kukreja), Judge.