Prem Chand Katna v. Income Tax Officer & Ors

( 2025:HHC:29906 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14241 of 2025 Decided on: 03.09.2025 ______________________________________________________________ Prem Chand Katna ....Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer & Ors. …Respondents _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the petitioner : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. Ishaan kashyap, Advocates. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral) Notice. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, waivesservice and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2.The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:­ “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issuewrit in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction, thereby quashing/setting asidethe impugned notice issued under Section 148 dated29.03.2025 (Annexure P­2), being illegal, withoutjurisdiction, against the procedure and further based on the illegal sanction/approval under Section 151 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/actionsconsequent thereto.” 3.The subject matter of challenge in this petition,whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugnednotice under Section 148, dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P­2)is already under consideration before the Apex Court inSLP (c) No.17040/2024, titled asThe AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax& Another Vs. M/s Dr.Reddy Laboratories Ltd. with connected matters. 4. Since the issue involved in this petition is already pending consideration before the Apex Court,therefore, keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrainourselves from giving our opinion with respect to impugnednotice under Section 148, dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P­2), as assailed in this petition. We direct that the presentpetition shall be governed by the judgment passed by theApex Court and the decision thereto, shall be binding onthis case also. 5. The continuity of proceedings before thecompetent authority, in view of the pendency of the matter ( 2025:HHC:29906 ) before the Apex Court is bound to lead to multiplicity oflitigation. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to stay suchproceedings till the time issue is finally decided by the ApexCourt. Ordered accordingly. The petition is disposed of in above terms, soalso pending application(s), if any. ( Vivek Singh Thakur )Judge September 03, 2025(raman) ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge