Sunil Bansal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Incometax And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 12659 of 2025. Date of decision: 05.08.2025. Sunil Bansal …Petitioner. Versus Assistant Commissioner of IncomeTax and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner :Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. IshanKashyap, Advocates. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Issue notice. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate,waives service and accepts notice on behalf of respondents. 2.The instant petition has been filed for grant of thefollowing 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 under section 148 dated31.03.2025 ANNEXURE P-2, being illegal, without Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:26551 ) jurisdiction, against the procedure and further basedon the illegal sanction/approval under section 151 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/actionsconsequent thereto.” 2.The subject-matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned noticeunder Section 148 dated 31.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) is alreadyunder consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court inSLP(c) No.17040/2024, titled as The AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax & another vs. M/s Dr. ReddyLaboratories Ltd. with connected matters. 3.Since the issue involved in this petition is alreadypending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,therefore, keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrainourselves from giving our opinion with respect to impugnednotice under Section 148, dated 31.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), asassailed in this petition. We direct that the present petitionshall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon’bleSupreme Court and the decision thereto, shall be binding onthis case. 4.The continuity of proceedings before thecompetent authority in view of the pendency of the matterbefore the Hon’ble Supreme Court is bound to lead to Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:HHC:26551 ) multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, we deem it appropriate tostay such proceedings till the time issue is finally decided by the Ho’nble Supreme Court. Ordered accordingly. 5.The petition is disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge 5[th] August, 2025.(krt) (Sushil Kukreja) Judge