Under Section 14Ga Of The Act As Also Under Section L4G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Facelessman Ner v. Income_Tax Officert Decidedon 14.09.2023 Whereby A Balch Of Writ Petitions Were Allowed Andthe Proceedings Initiated Under Section L4G

TEL.ANGANAHrGH couRr [t?+ ]IiED:[iIisF (SPecial [Original ][Jurisdiction)] TUESDAY ,THE 1ULYrWO TNOUSNND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [P'SAM ] THE HONOURABLE [SRI'IU S#EDruANSING ] WRIT [N][O: ][1939][50F][ 2025] ""t*"'*Iu.r* BELTDE, sro [r<nryre^silwf,lff'gi5,t]'.,t"Atr3t,irt#!38.,v,iil3:]P":?;tri', [l^'"t'Jb?] ...PETITIONER o*?o""':'*Yfl!:ll?'"?tiL5fi :Slt:A:ffi [:ToT'r"ffi ][;'l?1H:J3:]?tr3[]BTk}ll?f [L{,:i,l ][il ][:t;i";' ][: ][1 ][1 ][o ][bbi] 2 The lncome [Tax ][Offlcer' ][WarQ ][p(fJ' ][HYderabad/ ] [TOWER' ] [Guards']' Hvderabad-500004 [relangana]Ni;J; i;;"k, ' Hvderabad-500004 [relangana]Ni;J; i;;"k, 3. union [of lndia, Represent by ][secretary ][Ministry ][of ][Finance ][North ][Block, ][New]Delhi-1 [10 ][001]Delhi-1 [10 ][001] ...RESPONDENTS Petition [under Article 226 ][of ][the ][Constitution ]'of [lndia ][praying ][that ][in ][the]circumstances [stated in ][tnJ'if'O'* ][tf"O ][tnerewtfr' ][tn" ][Hioh ][Court ][may ][be ][pleased]to issue [a writ, order ][o' ][oi'#iJi"ioie ][particutarty ][one ]r'' [ii ]2nd [the ][nature ]Respondent [of ] [under][oF]IvIANDAMUS [holding ][that"t"# ]'i"ii"""iit'"-0.-1LA.9l - otr'i uo ireRlRsrlslt+8 112023'section 2411062495990(1) [148 ][Dated. ][for ][the ][t'i'i"'dii'"-"ioe ][n"'"'"'Jii"ni'i" ]-i+z i*'' [u' ][zolt-le ]t++ - read [and ]with section 1448 [the ][consequential order]of the' 'is oassed [bv ][the ]['lst ][responi""i'1" ]oi 'iozs' . oru lrBA/AST/s/14712024-income{ax [Act ][Date ][;i"b;;' ]25t1072537746('l) [for ][the"AssJttit"nii"u' ][2017-18' ][as arbitrary' illegal' bad ][in]law, void ab [initio, ][,iorrtion'-oiiln"lpi"r ][or ][natural. ][justice apart ][from violation of]Articles 1 , [19 ][(1xg) ][,no ][i'oi ][& ][lon.titrtion ][of lndia ][apart ][from ][being ][violative,of]orovisions of [section ][f ][+eA ][lnJ ][section ]-p,.ori.ions [1 ][49 ]of [of the Act ]section 151A [and also ]of [contrary ]the Act, [to ]and[the]H;H'ilJ Ov CeDr [lnO ]consequently [set ][aside ][tne ][JrOer'passed ][by ][1st-Resoondent ][uls ][147 ][r'w ][s ][144]read with [section ][1448 ]"i tn-u [f ]""o'"-tax Act Date [of ][Order ][25 ][01 ][2025' ][DIN'] consequential proceedings pursuant there ITBA/AST/S/1 4 7 t2024_25 I 1 Ot2S37 7 46(1) for to the Asser ssment Year 2017-18 and all IA NO: 10F 2025 ,n.,o,!Slillill#fl"n"#':1i:'r [cPC ][pravins ][that ]in the circumsrances srated inarr rurttrei proi;J;."il1T :t [the ][petition, ][the ][Hish]1 s t R e sp o n d e n t,r. [- ]., 0 ;'] 19'l [o ][a n ][v i" ]"" [;; ][#: ][t ]"";'i: [lffi ]['" ][:."" ][i ]i"rX.""l ff,fjA 25 iii:i',:;1L?Eb?l1i?sl1i'!1!Y)!,f s s 01 e s s '2025' m e n t ye ",0" a r 2 0 orri 1 z- 1 8 'l'-'nd'il"'v [o ]- r r-a;a"i [of ]rli)ffi [Demand ][;;;;;,;1t;i;*la:l,",ele:]iJ;[r"r,it11 [nol]:?%"i,, I ..,J" i?.; Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1&2: Ms. B. SApNA REDDY SC FOR lTRespondent Nos.1&2: Ms. B. SApNA REDDY SC FOR lT Respondent No.3: S:il;:,jilTe GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Depury Soticitor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE [SRI JUSTICE P'SAM ] NAR'TNG [[RAo]]rHE HoNouRABLE NANDIKONDA'*iH"t'"' NAR'TNG [[RAo]] WRIT [P]ETITI [No][.19395][ of2025] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][NandikonQa)] Heard [Mr'T ][Chaitanya ][Kumar' ][learned ][counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms'B'Sapna ][Reddy' ][learned ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel [lor ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department appearing ][for ][the]respondents. [Perused ][the record'] 2. This is [a writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][148.4]andl48oftheIncomeTaxAct,lg6l(forshort.theAct,)ortheassessmentordersthosehavebeenpassedunderSectionl4Tofthe Act [which ][have been assailed.] THE HONOURABLE [SRI JUSTICE P'SAM ] NAR'TNG [[RAo]]rHE HoNouRABLE NANDIKONDA'*iH"t'"' NAR'TNG [[RAo]] WRIT [P]ETITI [No][.19395][ of2025] ORDER, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][Narsing ][Rao ][NandikonQa)] Heard [Mr'T ][Chaitanya ][Kumar' ][learned ][counsel ][for ][the]petitioner [and ][Ms'B'Sapna ][Reddy' ][learned ][Senior ][Standing]Counsel [lor ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department appearing ][for ][the]respondents. [Perused ][the record'] 2. This is [a writ ][petition ][where ][the ][proceedings ][are ][either]challenged [to ][the notices ][which ][were ][issued ][under ][Section ][148.4]andl48oftheIncomeTaxAct,lg6l(forshort.theAct,)ortheassessmentordersthosehavebeenpassedunderSectionl4Tofthe Act [which ][have been assailed.] 3. This writ [petition ][is ][being ][taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, [that the ][notices ][issued ][under ][Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act]and the [subsequent ][initiation of ][proceedings ][under Section ][148 ][of]Act [by the ][jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]tlry \oftheamendmentthatwasbroughttothelncomeTaxActbywayof Finance [Lct,, ][2021 ][w e'f ][, ][01'04'2021 onwards' ][proceedings] under Section 14gA of the Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessman ner 4. The contention of the contention of the of the the petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Financ e Act, 2021i.e.. thermpugned notices under Section l48A and Section I4g ofthe Actnot being issued in a faceless rnanner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Courr in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME_TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 whereby a balch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also under Sectioni48 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l51A ofthe Act read with Notification lg/2022 dated,29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large nurnber of writ petitions which were a owed on simirartems. The contention of the contention of the of the the petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of ' [(2023) I 56 raxrnann.corn I7g (Telangana)] ,l 5Down [the line, ][we ][hnd ][that ][the ][same ][issue has ][also ][been]'various [High ][Courts ][t'e ]decided [against ][the ][Revenue ][bY]the case [of ] the [BornbaY ][High ][Coutt ][tn]by TECHNOLOGIES [LTD" ][vs' ASSISTANT ] OF INCOME [& ][OTHERS2' ][Gauhati ][High ][Court in the ][case]of llAM [SAH vs' ] [INDIA3' ][Punjab ][and]I{aryana [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 ][High Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN [VS. ] [OFFICER,]INTERNATIONAL [which ][is ][again on international]taxation [ancl ][central ][circle' ][tligh ][Court ][of ][Himachal ][Pradesh ][in ][the]case of [vs' ] [OFFICERT']Gujarat l{igh [Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ] 'yzoz+1464 [430 ][(Bom)]'iQOZq [156 ][taxmann.com ][478 ][(Gauhati)l]^ [(.2024) [165 ][taxmann.corn ] [l5 ][(Punjab ][& ][I{aryana)]]' [2024){67 [taxmann.com 411 (Tetangana)]]" 12024) [l$6 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]' izOZ+) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [1 ][3 ][(Himachal ][Pradesh)l] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3Xt8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe 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 Courl 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 decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical rnatters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought frorn theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Lttl., (2 supra) as also the one whiclt has beendecided by this Couft in the case of Konskula Ravindra Reddy'2024 [Online ]Gui 4012'2025 SCC Onl ine Jhar 2R7I o fy2023 : RJ-JD : 4 9 84-DBl f (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']ln addition, [there ][are ][about ][1200 SLPs also ][filed ][arising ][out ][of ][the]same [issue ][being ][decided by ][various Lligh ][Courts']7 . To a [query being put ][to ][the ][learned ][counsel ][for ][the ][Revenue']they [have ][categorically ][accepted ][the ][lact ][that there is ][no ][interim]Coufi [in ][anY ][of ][these]order [granted ][by ][the Hon'ble ][Supreme]fresh writ Petitions [of]matters [pending before ][it ][Meanwhile']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 Courl ][that]was passed [as ][early ][as ][on ][14'09'2023 and ][more 16 ][months ][have]lapsed, [till ][date, ][we ][do ][not ][find ][any ][remedial ][steps ][having ][been]taken by [the Income ]['rax ][Department ][to ][take appropriate ][steps ][to]either [hold ][back ][issuance ][of ][notice ][under ][Section 148,{ 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 srillinitiating proceedings under Sectionl48A of the Act ancl alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the arnendments brought into. the Inconte i.ax Actpursuant to the Finance Act,2C20 as also the Finance Act 2021 .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 Courl intlre case of Konakala Ravinclra Rettdy (l supra), iearned StandingCounscl flor the Incorne Tax Depaftrrent contends that those wor-rlclunnecessarily burden the Income .lax Department where theywould be required to file equal number. of SI_ps belore theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further burdening theexchequer of the Union of India. It was also the contention of theleamed Standing Counsel 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 before the IIon,bleSupreme Court 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 have not comeour with a mcchanism to issue appropr.iate instructions or to take appropriate [steps ][in ][ensuring ][that ][proceedings ][under Section ][148A]of the 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 ][teamed ][Standing]Counsel [that the ][said ][steps can ][only ][be ][taken ][at ][the level ][of ] as any [such steps ][would ][have ][to ][be taken ][Pan ][India ][and ][cannot ][be]limited [to ][any ][of ][these ][jurisdictional ][High Coutts']10. [As ][a ][result ][of ][which' ][what ][we are ][lacing ][is ][steep increase ][of]lirigation [day ][in ][and ][day out ][even thotrgh ][various ][orders have ][been]passed [by this ][High Court allowing ][writ ][petitions on ][the ][very ][same]issue. [The Income ]['I'ax ][authorities concerted ][are ][still ][svsn ][nsw ][in]2025 [also ][initiating ][proceedings ][in ][contravention ][to ][the provisions]of Section [1 ][5 ][1A of ][the ][Act ][and ][as ][a ][result by ][now' ][more ][than ][600]toT00petitionshavebeenalreadygotpiledupbeforethisHighCourt [on ][an ][issue ][which ][otherwise ][stands ][squarely covered ][by ][the]of [this ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of Kanukala Ravindra ][Reddy]ju<lgment (l supra). [What is ][also surprising ][is ][the ][fact that ][though whiie]allowing [the ][writ ][petitions ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Kunakalu ][Ravindta]Retlcty [(l ][supra), ][the ][Division ][Bench ][while ][reserving ][the ][dght ][of]the Revenue, [has also ][protected ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] \ insofar as the libety which was granted to the Ilevenue lorinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance Act, 2020 anclthe Finance Act, 2021 . The petitioner assessee q,ould be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Deparlment has rnade no endeavour. ir.rai.ailing the said liberty that was reserved for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on to the stand, r,r,hich thisFligh Coult as well as many other High Courls already hcld to bebad.llIt appears that because of the aforesaid liberry that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenue fbr tnrtrating fi.eshproceedings as a one_time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take advantage of. the same by,protracting these proceedings which would enable them to rneet thclimitation that would otherwise come in the way. Likewise, ilthewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon,ble Supreme Clourt confirmsthe decision taken by this High Couft as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLps are still pending, the Income Tax / / Depaftment [would ][get ][the ][advantage ][of ][the ][libedy ][that ][is ][otherwlse]protected [in ][favour ][of ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings [from ][the disposal ][of ][these ][matters ][at a ][much later ][stage]which [would ][be ][advantageous ][and beneficial ][to the ][Revenue ][and]would be [equally ][disadvantageous ][and ][detrimental ][so lar ][as ][interest]of the [assesses ][are ][concemed' ][As ][a consequence'][ the lncome Tax]Depadment [gets an extended ][period ][of ][time ][for initiation ][of ][fresh]proceedings.12. [The atarming ][trend ][of ][docket ][explosion ][in ][this Courl' ][despite]the clear [precedent ][sel ][in ][Kanakala Ravindra ][Recltty ][(l ][supra)' ][is ][a]matter [of ][grave concem' The Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation [of ][fresh ][proceedings' disregarcling ][tl.re ][established ][judicial]pronouncements, [has ][led ][to ][an ][unprecedented ][surge ][in ][litigation]with over [600-700 petitions ][piling up on ][the ][same ][issueThis]deliberate [approach ][not only ][undermines ][the principle ][of judicial]precedent [but also ][strains ][the ][judicial ][resources ][unnecessarily' The]Department's [strategy ][of ][awaiting ][the ][Supreme ][Court's ][decision ][on]pending [SLPs ][while ][continuing ][to ][initiate fresh ][proceedings]appears [to ][be ][a ][calculated ][move ][to ][buy time ][and ][circumvent]limitation [periods' rather ][than adhering ][to ][the ][established ][legal] posltion. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrativeefficiency and therespect for judicialpronouncements, parlicularly when this court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Re'enue,s rights andassesses interests13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have becn realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via lnedia in ensuring tliat proceedingsunder Sections l4g_A and l4g should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon,ble Supreme Court clecide the:::]l:j:io::3 !i3gr]^:13jl-ps [which ][it ]is arreadl,seized of or, arleast the Income Tr:r ;."-"'"^':partment should have found out sorneremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 14g_A and l4g, other 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 same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if ar all : I : 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]Though [the ][learned]level of [Central ][Board ][of ][Direct ][Taxes']Standing [Counsel ][for ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended ][that]the Delhi [High Court ][dismissed ][a ][writ ][petition ][ol ][similar ][nature' ][on]the one [hand ][when ][the High Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, [such notices ][which ][are ][under challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition [are ][forcing the ][assessee ][to ][knock the doors ][of this Iligh]Cor-rrt [resulting ][in fiting of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long [run ][not ][only ][afl-ects ][the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions ][but]also consumes [substantial ][time ][of ][the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters [again and again ][on daily ][basis. ][Admittedly, in ][spite ][of ][the]matter [beforc ][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]lncome [Tax Department' ][Yet' ][the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State [level ][are ][not ][ready ][to ][accept ][the ][verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][majority]of High [Courls ][of ][different ][States ][on ][the ][same issue; ][and ][to ][make]things [further ][worse, ][the ][Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity [by issuing ][notices ][continuously under ][Sections ][148-A ][and] \-\ 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA ys. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXil, on anissue wherher.it wasjustifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollor.ving an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh court of Bombay herd at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. paridwalladecison orthis court , Jil:Il:":::i;:#il1"::ffGodavaridevi ordinate Bench Sarafl2 of this C(as also the recent decision of the co_t^il:r:il:::J:i::1, or wh ch one or us ,.,rr;': : the Court categorically observed that the Revenue ;rJ,:;having not"accepted,, the judgment of the High Court would not ' mean that tilllhe same is set aside in a manne. trn^,.,^ +^ ,_. " .bindins rorce Rererrins ,J;:T:i:::'":,li-;lri,l :ffi lUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, 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. t,t, '' |,1}3t.r .l 7 0. t a x r n a m. c or n 4 2 2 ( B o r n bay 1lle78l j l] It R 589 fllombay)'' |,1}3t.r .l 7 0. t a x r n a m. c or n 4 2 2 ( B o r n bay 1lle78l j l] It R 589 fllombay) '' [2024] 165 raxmann.corn 5g l/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)'" |992) laxrnann.com l6155 ELT433 (SC) t,t, '' |,1}3t.r .l 7 0. t a x r n a m. c or n 4 2 2 ( B o r n bay 1lle78l j l] It R 589 fllombay)'' |,1}3t.r .l 7 0. t a x r n a m. c or n 4 2 2 ( B o r n bay 1lle78l j l] It R 589 fllombay) '' [2024] 165 raxmann.corn 5g l/300 Taxman 452 (Bombay)'" |992) laxrnann.com l6155 ELT433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy [is ][perhaps ][right ][in ][saying ][that ][the]officers [were ][not ][actuated ][by ][any ][mala ][fides ][tn]the [impugned ][orders ][They ][perhaps]passing g"nui*ty [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 ][ln]regard [to ][the same ][issue which ][were ][placed ][before]tnem, [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 harassment to the [assessee ][caused ][by ][the failure]ofof these [officers ][to ][give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders]Itauthorities [higher ][to them ][in ][the ][appellate hierarchy]ofcannot [be ][too ][vehemently emphasized ][that ][it ][is]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]Collectors [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 undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with tbecause it has been .,1"_ -":,*' "i [some ][rength,]Additionar sori"ito. ce,.ulalT::',3 i::"r";:::made by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that throot"'ut'ons of the Highcourt, seemingry ,un.' and apparen yunparatabre ,o ,n" R"runr"tunt' a tendency jn revenue rrr:::"#'o,,lt:ffffi'ilbecome widespread, could result in conslderableharassment to the assessesto the Revenue *" *"ro,Jo["-',:"::;"1::i;:department should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in futushourd be paid by the r.,,;,"ff;iff;:[i::"jn:appeltate authorities to thedisciprine and the need ... n,ii"1''1ili,": ;: :::i1of the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the tact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whorn have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the ']i 15. What is worrying this Bench more is the tact that an endeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure not to generatefurther litigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber of High Courts all of whorn have taken a consistent standthat the action of the Income Tax Department being violative of the ']i 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 [Ravinclrl ][Reddy ][(l ][supra) shall ][however ][be ][subject ][to]the outcome [of ][the ][Sl'Ps which were ][hted ][by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Depaftment [and ][which ][is ][pending consideration ][before ][the ][I{on'ble]Supleme [Coutt.] 16. In [the ][given ][tacts ][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 ][Cout]and which [stands ][forlified by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]Courls [on the very ][same ][issue' the ][pendency ][of ][this ][Fligh]l{igh Courl [would lurther ][be ][burdened ][which ][otherwise can ][be decided]and disposed [of ][as a ][covered matter'] 17. So [far ][as ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed' we ][are ][of]the considered [opinion ][that ][the interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][has ][already]been considered [and protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] 36,37 ancl3g ofthe order which, for ready refercncehereunder: rs reproduced 36. For all the aforesaid re issued and tne p,o"""oing-"":::;i?TJi::il:ff:Department is neithernor sustainabre.The notices so issued "no [,'un'o'"' ]he Procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves ,o and are accordingly setaside/quashed. oa , aon".o ou"n"u' all the impugnedorders getting quashed, ,nu. by the responde", ,Tr::::: ,li:::il::issued under Section ""rr;r::l 147:,:f"d :ld ll [i ][ollered,#:;;T:,l::" ]l.jare quashing the consequential order is ,n" O;r",0,".procedurally that when the initiation of the proceedings "" rtself waswrong, the subsequent orders also getsnulrified automaticary. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustatned and ali these writthis ve ry ju risdictiona r issue. fi:J;: ::::; #:,:::and orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not rnclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raisedand contended in anappropriate proceedings. QOSince the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, ln the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one{imemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of tndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedConstitution of tndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions,and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the rightthe 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 ][Cotlfl- int-the"case rcf*Asfiish-' ][']Agarwal, [suPra] QOSince the Hon,ble Supreme Court had, ln the caseof AshishAgarwal, supra, as a one{imemeasureexercisingthe powers under Article 142of theConstitution of tndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedConstitution of tndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions,and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the rightthe 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 ][Cotlfl- int-the"case rcf*Asfiish-' ][']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 Couft ][in ][the ][case ][ol]KanukalaRavindraRetkty(lsupra)issubjectedtochallengebefore the [Hon'bte ][Supreme ][Court ][in ] [No'3574 ][of ][2024']preferred [by ][the ][Incorne ][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 ][ofthis]Court [in the ][case ][of ][Kanukala ][Rwindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra)']High This, [in ][other words, rvould ][mean ][that ][either ][of ][the parties' ][if ][they]so want, [may ][move ][an ][appropriate ][petition ][seeking ][revival of ][this]writ [petition in the ][light ][of ][the decision ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme]Courl [in ][the pending SLP on ][the ][very ][same ][issue'] lg. [Accordingly, ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favour of the [assessee ][so far ][as ][the ][issue ][of ][jurisdiction ][is]concerned. [As ][a ][consequence' ][the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge [under Sections 148-A ][and ][148 ][stands ][set ][aside/quashed'] II \ The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case olKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII"-itg,"?i-1'f .'8f.f HiH- rr,SECTION OFFICER To, 1. Assessment Unit, NatioUnit, Natiok##,:?[ffi dS#]trfl ["-';A'.,T:f.e,i,,?:H:"iE:H:#-]dS#]trfl ["-';A'.,T:f.e,i,,?:H:"iE:H:#-] ' il':""i?Tl"? l,ii.?Xi"r"Ja.EtrBfj,?; llli?,,ii,d /, r row E R, AC G u a rd s, 3. The Secretary Ministry of Finance North Block, New Delhi_i.10 001 4. One CC to SRt. THANNERU CHA|TANYA KUIvIAR Advocate tOpUClDelhi_i.10 001 5. One CC to Ms. B. SAPNA REDDY SC FOR tT tOpUClto sRI' GADI PRAVEEN to sRI' GADI PRAVEEN ' t$r"r?? KurvAR o"or,, i,"ar Generar of rndia 7. Two CDC optes optes AT ijIIII \ HIGH COURT DATED:08 tTtt2\2s ORDER WP.No.19395 of 2O2S ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS ({'i\ao10 sEP 206j$_l(,,t/\ ': ,, ' ,,-, ir'l--:: [j-?']