> Under Section 1484 Of The Act As Arso Under Sectiorr R4G Of The Act Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded I.r A Faceless Manner v. Income_Tax Officiirt Decided On 14.09.2023 Whereby A Batch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed And The Proceedings Init

HIGH COURT AT HYDERABAD(SPecial Original [Jurisdiction)] FRIDAY, TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE [JUST1.E ] WRIT PETITI [NO:1][ 4259][ oF ][2025] Between: Balagouni Balraj [Goud, S/o: ] [Lingamayya ][Goud' ][Aoed about ][61 ][years']occupation. ar$n".J] [H]N6'ri-5izil ][Cr'1(kadpallv' ][Hlderabad ][relangana-]500020 ,.PETITIONER AND 1. The Deputv [Commissioner of lncome ][Tax',Circle ][1(1 ][)' ][Hyderabad' ][lT ][Tower']ACc-r;Jroi, [tt/isab ][Tank, ][Hvderabad - ][500004']ACc-r;Jroi, [tt/isab ][Tank, ][Hvderabad - ][500004'] 2The Princioal Chief [Commissioner of lncome ][Tax ][AP^and ][TS' ][1Oth ][Floor' ] iffii,,'i.i %;;;, [i ][o-r-C, ][A C. ][cuards, ][Hvderabad-500004]iffii,,'i.i %;;;, [i ][o-r-C, ][A C. ][cuards, ][Hvderabad-500004] 3The Assessment [Unit, lncome Tax ][Department'National ][Faceless]No 401 ' [2nd ][Floor' ] No 401 ' [2nd ][Floor' ] Assessment [Centre, Delhi, ][riri^itiil ]"iFinlni""noom "iFinlni""noom Ai.m,;, i;;;#iri [r'iunru ][stadium' ][oetrri'l10003'] ...RESPONDENTS Petition under [Article ][226 ][of ][lhe ][Constitution ][of ][lndia praying ][that in ][the]circumstances [stated ][in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][therewith' ][the ][High ][Court may ][be]pleased to issue [a ][writ, ][order or direction' more ][particularly ][one ][in ][the ][nature ][of]WritofMandamus,declaringtheproceedingsu/s,148A(d)d|.13.04.2024bearingDINNo.ITBA/AST/F/148A12o24-25t106407s355(1)andthenoticeu/s148dt.13.04.2024 [vide DIN ][No. ][ITBA/ASTtst148-1t2O24-2511064078372(1 ][) ][issued ][by]the JAO(1st [respondent) instead of FAO(3rd respondent) ][for ] [Y' ][2017-18' ][as void']and [contrary ][to the ][provisions ][of ][lncome-tax ][Act and ][contrary ][to ][the]illegal, Principles of [Natural Justice.] lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 15'1 cPC praying that in the cirr;rmstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may, be pleased to stayall further proceedings pursuant to the notice u/s 148 dl 13.04.2024 vide DIN No.lrBA/AST/s/148 112024-2511064078372(1) issued by the .J,A0(1st respondent)instead of FAO(3rd respondent) for A.Y. 2012-18. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DUNDU MANMOHAN Counsel forthe Respondents: MS.BOKARO SAPNA REDDY(Jr. SC FOR INCoME TAX)(Jr. SC FOR INCoME TAX) The Court made the following: ORDER ,;s THE TIONOT]RABLE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE TIONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION[No. 14259 ][0F ][2025] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice P'Sam ][Koshy) ] ' Heard Mr. Dundu [Manmohan, ][learned counsel ][for ][the]petitioner and Ms. [B.Sapna Reddy, ][leamed Senior ][Standing]Counsel for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][for ][the ][respondents']Perused the [record.] This is a writ is a writ [[petition ]][[where ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]] 2. This is a writ is a writ [[petition ]][[where ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][1484.]and 148 of [the Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those have ][been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have been assailed'] This writ writ [[petition ]][[is ][being ][taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[being ][taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 2. This is a writ is a writ [[petition ]][[where ]][[the ][proceedings ]][[proceedings ]][[are ][either]][[either]]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under Section ][1484.]and 148 of [the Income ][Tax ][Act, ][1961 ][(for ][short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment [orders those have ][been ][passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which [have been assailed'] This writ writ [[petition ]][[is ][being ][taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[being ][taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]] 3. This writ writ [[petition ]][[is ][being ][taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[being ][taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[only ][on ][one ][of ][the]][[on ][one ][of ][the]][[one ][of ][the]][[of ][the]][[the]]the [notices ][issued ][under ][Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act]grounds, that and the subsequent [initiation ofproceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]the Act by [the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][tems]oftheamendmentthatwasbroughttothelncomeTaxActbywayof Finance Act,202l [w.e.f., ][0l'04'2021 ][onwards' ][proceedings] under section 1484 of the Act as arso under Sectiorr r4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded i.r a facelessmanner.Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded i.r a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that tl.re issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2O2I i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA ancl Section l,1g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already br:t:n dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of Kd\KANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICIIRT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section 14gA as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential :rr:liefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section t5lA of,the Act read wirh Notification lgl2o2T dated,29.03.20112. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowecl on similarterms. ' 1Q023) I 56 raxmann.com l7g (Telangana)l 5. Down the [line, ][we ][find ][that ][the ][same ][issue has also ][been]decided against [the ][Revenue ][by ][various ][High ][Courts ][i'e'']by the Bombay [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] TECHNOLOGIES [LTD., ][VS. ] OF INCOME [& ][OTHERS2, ][Gauhati ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case]of.RAM NARAYAN [vs. ] [INDIAI, ][Punjab ][and]Haryana High [Court ][in ][the case ][of ] vs. UNION OF [INDIA4, ][and ][Telangana ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]SRI VENKATARAMANA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER [where the ][issue was ][in]respect of international [taxation, Bombay ][F{igh ][Court in the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR [vs' ] [OFFICE&]INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again ][on ][international]taxationandcentralcircle,HighCourtofHimachalPradeshinthecase of GOVIND [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat High [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 'eozql464ITR [430 ][(Bom)]' llzoz+1 [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ll2}24) [165 ][taxmann'com I ][l5 ][(Pgrjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(felangana)l]"12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'izoZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][1 ] [(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] 'eozql464ITR [430 ][(Bom)]' llzoz+1 [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ll2}24) [165 ][taxmann'com I ][l5 ][(Pgrjab ][& ][Haryana)l]'12024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ] [(felangana)l]"12024) [166 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]'izoZ+1165 [taxmann.com ][1 ] [(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE&WARD 3(3)(5)8, Jharkand I{igh Courr in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan Ftigh Courl inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of writ petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have alsc, been takenby the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been deciderl by a largenumber of Iligh Courts, we are still confronted with lar.ge hling ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary grourLd that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case ol- IlexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy 8zo2q SCC online Guj 4012" [2025 ]SCC Online Jhar 287'o [p2023, ] [: ][4984-DBl] (1 supra) has [been ][subjected ][to ][challenge ][in ][a ][Special ][Leave]Petition i.e., [SLP No.3574 ][of ][2024 ][before ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court and [the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][is ][seized ][of ][the ][matter']In addition, [there ][are ][about ][1200 ][SLPs also ][filed ][arising ][out ][of ][the]same issue [being ][decided ][by ][various ][High ][Courts'] 1 . To a [query being ][put ][to ][the ][leamed counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue']have [categorically ][accepted ][the ][fact ][that there ][is no ][interim]they order [granted ][by ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][any ][of ][these]matters [pending ][before ][it' ][Meanwhile' fresh ][writ ][petitions ][of]identical nature [are ][being piled up ][before ][this Bench ][on ][daily ][basis]and the [pendency ][is ][getting ][increased ][on ][matter ][which ][otherwise]has already [been ][dealt and ][decided by ][this ][very ][High ][Court ][itself'] 8. On the one [hand' ][even ][though ][the ][order ][of ][this ][Court ][that]was [passed as ][early ][as ][on ][14'09'2023 and ][more ][16 months ][have]till [date, ][we do not ][find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]lapsed, taken by [the Income ][Tax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either [hold ][back ][issuance ][of ][notice under Section ][1484. and under]Section [148 ][of ][the ][Act ][by ][the jurisdictional ][Assessing ][offrcer,]rather the [authorities concemed ][in ][the teeth ][of ][series ][of ][decisions] by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section r4gA of the .r\ct and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 14g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2020 as also the Finance lot202l.9. Upon a query being put as to why can,t this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth of the decision rendered by this court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that _hose wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further bru.dening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of thelearned Standing Counsel that no prejudice would be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kr:pt pendingtill the finalization of the SLps pending before the Hon,bleSupreme Courl and the fact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on the earlier queryof this Court as to why the Income Tax Department ha,,.t: not comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings ][under Section ][148A]ofthe Act [as ][also ][the ][assessment ][orders ][under Section ][148 ][ofthe]Act are kept [in ][a ][hold ][in ][the ][light ][ofthe ][decisions dedcided ][by ][the]various High [Courts, ][it ][was submitted ][by ][the ][learned ][Standing]Counsel that [the ][said steps can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the level ][ofCBDT]as any such [steps ][would ][have ][to ][be taken Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any [of ][these ][jurisdictional ][High Courts'] 10. As a [result of ][which, ][what we ][are ][facing ][is ][steep ][increase ][of]litigation day [in ][and ][day out ][even though ][various ][orders have ][been]this [High Court allowing ][writ ][petitions on ][the ][very ][same]passed by issue. The [Income ][Tax ][authorities ][concemed ][are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also [initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the ][provisions]of Section [151-.4. ][of the ][Act ][and ][as a ][result ][by ][now' ][more ][than ][600]to 700 [petitions ][have been already got ][piled ][up before ][this ][High]Courtonanissuewhichotherwisestandssquarelycoveredbythejudgment of this Court [in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakala ][Ravindra ][Reddy]What [is ][also surprising ][is ][the fact that ][though while](1 supra). allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kanakula ][Ravindra]Reddy (l [supra); ][the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue ferinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Financ e A:t, 2020 andthe Finance Act.2021. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no ,:ndeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revr:^ue. on thecontrary, rhey have been still sticking on to the stand which thisHigh Courl as r.vell as many other High Courts alreadlr held to bebad I 1. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid liberty thrrt this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initi lting freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless rLanner, theCourt had granted permitting the Revenue for initi lting freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless rLanner, thelncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them ro meet theprotracting these proceedings which would enable them ro meet thelimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likervise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourls in which the SLpsare still pending, the Inc,ome Tax\,writ petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourls in which the SLpsare still pending, the Inc,ome Tax\, '.r-) Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of the ][liberty ][that ][is otherwise]in favour [of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings [from ][the ][disposal ][ofthese ][matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]which would [be ][advantageous ][and benehcial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally [disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses [are ][concerned. ][As ][a ][consequence, ][the Income ][Tax]Department [gets an extended ][period ][of time for initiation ][of ][fiesh]proceedings. '.r-) Department [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of the ][liberty ][that ][is otherwise]in favour [of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings [from ][the ][disposal ][ofthese ][matters ][at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]which would [be ][advantageous ][and benehcial ][to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally [disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses [are ][concerned. ][As ][a ][consequence, ][the Income ][Tax]Department [gets an extended ][period ][of time for initiation ][of ][fiesh]proceedings. 12. The alarming [trend ][of ][docket ][explosion in this ][Court' ][despite]the clear [precedent setin ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][is ][a]matter of [grave concern. ][The Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of [fresh proceedings, disregarding the ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over 600-700 [petitions ][piling up ][on ][the ][same issue' ][This]deliberate [approach ][not ][only ][undermines ][the principle ][ofjudicial]but also [strains the ][judicial ][resources ][unndcessarily' ][The]precedent Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting the ][Supreme ][Court's decision ][on]while [continuing ][to ][initiate fiesh ][proceedings]pending SLPs to be [a' calculated ][move ][to ][buy ][time and ][circumvent]appears limitation [periods, rather than ][adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] r L position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efhciency and the respect lbr judicialpronouncemen[s, particularly when this Court has alrr:irdy provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue,s rights andassesses interests. 13. Anrther aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Departme.nt itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that oroceedingsunder Sections 148-4. and 14g should not have beerL issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already sei:red of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should have founcl out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authoritier; intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 14g-A and 14g, otht:r than in afaceless manner, the proceedings should have been deferredwithout precipitating the matter further intimating the assessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only after the SLp,s aredecided by the Hon,ble Supreme Court on the very sirme issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decisic,n if at all a:. i; a:. i; has to be taken, [has ][to be ][taken ][for ][the ][whole ][of India' ][and ][which]otherwise [has ][to ][be ][by ][way of ][a ][policy ][decision and that ][too ][at ][the]level of [Central Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes' ][Though ][the ][leamed]Standing [Counsel ][for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Depafiment ][contended that]the Delhi [High Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][of ][similar ][nature' ][on]theonehandwhentheHighCourtisstrugglingtoreduceitspendency, [such notices ][which ][are under ][challenge ][in ][this ][writ]are [forcing ][the ][assessee ][to ][knock the ][doors ][of ][this High]petition Court resulting [in ][filing ][of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long [run ][not only ][affects the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes [substantial ][time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again [and again ][on daity ][basis' Admittedly' in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court having ][been ][taken ][on]many occasions, [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court which is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has [been ][reluctant ][in ][granting ][any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax [Department' Yet, the ][authorities concemed ][at ][the]State level [are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept ][the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High [Courts ][of ][different ][States ][on the ][same ][issue; and ][to ][make]further [worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]things audacity by [issuing ][notices ][continuously under ][Sections ][148-4 ][and] 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Offlcer wliereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner 14. ln the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. A.SSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXr1, on an issue v,hether it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Departrnent in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authonty only on theground that the appears are pending, the Division fi,rnch of theHigh Courl of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as uncler, viz., : "25. Mr. paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax v$. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (p) Ltd. v. lTOl3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, v*hereinthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mear that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme 0)urt inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, thecourt observed that the approach of the officiars of Reve.ue oftreating decisions being [..not ]acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. '.'.119781 ',) !r,r:::, ll3 .,.r^u,:lL ITR n 58e a nn. lBombay)c o m 422 ( B o mb ay)l",120211165 taxtnann.com 5gt/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)'o 1l9921taxmann.com 1 6/55 ELT433 (SC) s-} '.'.119781 ',) !r,r:::, ll3 .,.r^u,:lL ITR n 58e a nn. lBombay)c o m 422 ( B o mb ay)l",120211165 taxtnann.com 5gt/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)'o 1l9921taxmann.com 1 6/55 ELT433 (SC) s-} "6. Sri Reddy is [perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers were [not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned [orders. ][They ][perhaps]genuinely felt that the [claim ][of ][the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable and [that, ][if ][it ][was ][accepted' ][the ][Revenue]would suffer. [But what Sri Reddy overlooks ][is ][that ][we]are not concerned [here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise of [their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]malafides but [with the ][fact ][that ][the ][officers, ][in ][reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed two appellate ][orders ][in]regard to the same [issue which ][were ][placed ][before]them, one of [the ][Collector (Appeals) ][and the other ][of]the Tribunal. [The ][High ][Court ][has, in ][our ][view, rightly]criticized this [conduct of ][the ][Assistant Collectors ][and]the harassmer( [to ][the ][assessee caused ][by ][the ][failure]of these ofiicers to [give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities [higher ][to them ][in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy' lt]cannot be too [vehemenUy ][emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance [that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues before [them, ][revenue ][officers ][are]bound by the decisions [of ][the ][appellate ][authorities']The order of the [Appellte ][Collector ][is ][binding ][on ][the]Assistant Collectors [working within ][his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order of [the ][Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant]Coltectors and [the ][Appellate ][Collectors ][who ][function]under the [jurisdiction ][of the ][Tribunal. The ][principles ][of]judicial discipline require that [the ][orders ][of the ][higher]appellate authorities [should be followed ][unreservedly]by the subordinate [authorities. ][The mere fact ][that ][the]order of the [appellate ][authority is not ]["acceptable" to]the department - [in ][itself ][an ][objectionable ][phrase ][-]and is the [subject matter ][of ][an ][appeal ][can furnish ][no]ground for not following [it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by ][a competent ][court ][lf this ][healthY,].? .? rule is not followed, the result will only be unriueharassment to assesses and chaos in administralionof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some len! th,because it has been suggested by the learredAdditional Solicilor General that the observalc nsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenflyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to c,r rba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowecl tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any ben€fitto 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 rega.dshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and .:heappellate authorities to the requirements of judici3ldiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the lact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure no1 to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being viol,tive of the\. 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the lact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure no1 to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being viol,tive of the\. Finance Act,2020 and Finance [Act, ][2021 ][- ][Now, ][in ][order ][to ][protect]the interest of the Revenue as [also ][that ][of ][the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ]if we [dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction that [the disposal ][of the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]. Kankanala Ravindra [Reddy ]{1 [supra) ][shall ][however be ][subject ][to]the outcome of the SLPs [which were ][filed by ][the ][Income ][Tax]and which [is ][pending consideration before the ][Hon'ble]Department Supreme Court. 16. In the [given ][facts ][and ][circumstances, ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion that [unless and ][until we ][do not ][timely ][dispose]of matters which are [squarely covered by ][the ][decision ][of this Court]and which stands [fortified ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the various ][other]High Courts on the [very ][same ][issue, the pendency ][of ][this ][High]Court would further [be burdened ][which ][otherwise ][can ][be ][decided]' and disposed of as a covered matter. 11 . So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest interest [[of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concerned, we are ][of]][[the ][Revenue ][is ][concerned, we are ][of]][[Revenue ][is ][concerned, we are ][of]][[is ][concerned, we are ][of]][[concerned, we are ][of]][[of]]the considered opinion [that ][the ][interest ][of the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] So far as the interest far as the interest as the interest the interest interest [[of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concerned, we are ][of]][[the ][Revenue ][is ][concerned, we are ][of]][[Revenue ][is ][concerned, we are ][of]][[is ][concerned, we are ][of]][[concerned, we are ][of]][[of]] 36,31 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, ts reproducedhereunder 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent_Department is neither tenabte, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adoptecl beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordinr; y setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impLtgnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders;rassedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Seclion [.147 ]and 14g would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reasgn weare quashing the consequential order is on the prin()iplesthat when the initiation of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders alsc, getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petiticrer issustained and all these writ petitions stands alloweC onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned n,lticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner r,,vhichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the (;aseof Ashish Agarwat, supra, as a one{ime meal;ureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allov/ingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on [the ][Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra] 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the (;aseof Ashish Agarwat, supra, as a one{ime meal;ureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of India, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allov/ingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right conferred on [the ][Revenue ][would ][remain ][reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they ][so want from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of [the ][Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]Agarwal, [suPra] 18. We [would ][only ][further like ][to ][make observations ][that ][since]we are inclined [to ][dispose ][of ][the ][instant ][writ petition' ][conscious ][of]the fact that [the ][earlier ][order ][of ][this High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the [Hon'ble ][Supreme Cour-t ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred by [the Income ][Tax Department' we ][make ][it ][clear that]allowing [of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid [SLP preferred ][by ][the Revenue ][against the ][decision ][of ][this]HighCourtinthecaseofKanakalaRavindraReddy(|supra).in [other words, ][would ][mean ][that either ][of ][the ][parties' ][if ][they]This, so want, [may ][move ][an ][appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival ][of this]writ petition [in the light ][of ][the decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Court in the [pending ] [on ][the ][very ][same ][issue'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of [the ][assessee ][so far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction]1Sconcemed. [As' ][a ][consequence' ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge [under Sections 148-A and ][148 stands ][set aside/quashed'] I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set as irle/qu2rh.6 .,similar terms as have been passed by this High Cour1. in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy (I supra). There shall be no order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending., if any, shall stand closed IrI HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 ORDERWP.No.14259 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS .-=:,r [ine ][S](',6()C))1s iul 206zo.,.t*tltpAT