Under Section L48A Of The Act As Also Under Section L4G Of Theact Ought To Have Also Been Issued And Proceeded In A Facelessmanner v. The Contention Of The Petitioner Contention Of The Petitioner Of The Petitioner The Petitioner Petitioner Is That The Issue That The Issue Issue Of

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONOA WRIT PETITION NO:27132 OF 2024 Between: Smt. Vara Lakshmi Koppula, W/o. Sri Chandrasekhar Rao [lvlorampudi, ][Aged]about 39 years, Occ. House Wife, Flat N1o.8323, Tower-8, Prestige [High]Fields. ISB Road, Nanakramguda, Hyderabad - 500032. ...'ET'T.ONER AND 1 . The lncome Tax fficer, Ward - 1 , lncome Tax Office, Rajeev Gunt, RajivChowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam 507001 -Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam 507001 - Chowk, Near Kinnerasani Theatre, Khammam 507001 -2 Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome [Tax]Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401 ,2t1d Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi [1 ]10 003.Department, Ministry of Finance, Room No. 401 ,2t1d Floor, E-Ramp,Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi [1 ]10 003. 3. The lncome Tax fficer, Ward - 8(1), Signature Towers, Opp. BotanicalGardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084. Gardens, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084. ...RES'ONDENTS Petition under Anide 226 of the Constitution of lndia [prayrng ]that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the [High Court may ][be]pleased to pass an order or direction, especially one in the nature of WRIT OFTVANDAwUS holding that the notice dated 31.03.2023 issued by 3rd Respondentunder section 148 of the Act (with DIN and Notice No.lTBAlASTlSl148l l2O22'23110517 27796(1)) as being without [jurisdiclion, ]arbitrary, illegal, bad rn law, [void]ab initio, apart from being violative of [provisions ]of section [148A ]and sectron [149]of the Act and also contrary to the circular issued by CBDT and [provisions ][of]section 151A of the Act, and consequently set aside the notice under section [148]dated 31 .O3.2023 and the assessment order [passed ]by 1st Respondent [for ][asst.]year 2O19-2O under section 147 t.w.s 144 of the Act. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be [pleased ]to staythe collection of tax demand raised by 1st Respondent [pursuant ]to [passing]assessment order for the Ay.2019-20 and to stay pending penalty proceedings. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A.V.RAGHU RAMCounsel for the Respondents: M/s. BOKARO SAPNA REODY, Jr. SC FORINCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER TtIE HONOURABLO SRI JUSTICE [P.SAM ] ANDTHE IIONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION N[o,-27132 ][of ][2024] 9RDEB, [(per ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Jusrice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. A.V.Raghu Ram, learned [counsel ][for ][the] petitioner and Ms. B.Sapna Reddy, [learned ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel for the Income Tax Department [for ][the ][respondents']Perused the record.Counsel for the Income Tax Department [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 ][l48A]and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 196l [(for short'the ][Act') ][or ][the]assessment orders those have been [passed ][under Section ][147 ][of]the Act which have been assailed. l. 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]the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing [Officer, ]y3"ut [in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought to [the ][Income Tax ][Act by ][way]of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 [onwards, ][proceedings] under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. l. 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]the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing [Officer, ]y3"ut [in ][terms]of the amendment that was brought to [the ][Income Tax ][Act by ][way]of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 [onwards, ][proceedings] under Section l48A of the Act as also under Section l4g of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act,202l i.e., theimpugaed notices under Section l48A and Section 14g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, 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 batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedings initiated under Section l4gA as also under Section148 of the Act were held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA ofthe Act read with Notificarion lB/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number ol writ petitions which were allowed on similartemrs. The contention of the petitioner contention of the petitioner of the petitioner the petitioner petitioner is that the issue that the issue issue of t [(202]) 156 taxmann.com l 78 (Telangana)l 5, f)own the line, we lind that thc same issue has also heendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of IIEXAWARETECTINOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati H[hCourt in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UIIION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Court in rhe case of JATIhIDER SINGII BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inrespect of international taxation, Bombay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs.INCOME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on intemationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOWND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKIIBHAI ' lzozq [464 ][rrR ][430 ][(Bom)]'f(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l^ l(2024) 165 raxmann.com I I 5 (punjab & Harydna)l'f(2024) 156 taxmann.com 478 (Gauhati)l^ l(2024) 165 raxmann.com I I 5 (punjab & Harydna)l ' 12024) 167 taxmann.com 4l I'[Tblangana)] " f2024) 166 taxmann-com 679 (Bombay)l ' 12024) 165 taxmarur.com I l3 (H imachat pradesh)l DAHYABHAI RADADIYA [VS. ] [OFFICER,]WARD 3(3)(08, Jharkand High Court [in ][the ][case ][of ] SUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, [Rajasthan ][High ][Court ][in]the case of SHARDA DBVI CHHAJER [vs. ] OFFICER & ANOTIIER and [batch ][of writ ][petitionsr0 ][which]stood decided on 19.03.2024. [Similar ][views ][have ][also been ][taken]by the Division Bench of Calcutta [High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA [vs. ] [& ] (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024- 6. Even though the same issue [having ][been decided ][by ][a large]number of High Courts, we [are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][filing ][of]identical matters on daity basis [ranging ][between ][5 ][to l0 ][writ]petitions. That upon the instructions [being ][sought ][fiom ][the]Department, they have been [taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of the Bombay lligh [Court ][in ][the ][case ][ol ][Hexaware]Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) [as also ][the ][one u'hich ][has ][been]decided by this Court in the [case ]of [Kanakala Rat'indra ][Reddy] '202q [Online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 [Onl-ine ][Jhar 287]' o 12023 [: ] [:4984- ] l 6. Even though the same issue [having ][been decided ][by ][a large]number of High Courts, we [are ][still ][confronted ][with ][large ][filing ][of]identical matters on daity basis [ranging ][between ][5 ][to l0 ][writ]petitions. That upon the instructions [being ][sought ][fiom ][the]Department, they have been [taking ][a ][solitary ][ground ][that ][the]decision of the Bombay lligh [Court ][in ][the ][case ][ol ][Hexaware]Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) [as also ][the ][one u'hich ][has ][been]decided by this Court in the [case ]of [Kanakala Rat'indra ][Reddy] '202q [Online ][Guj ][4012]'2025 [Onl-ine ][Jhar 287]' o 12023 [: ] [:4984- ] l (l cupra) has been sub,iected to challenge in a Special Leave Petition i.e., SLP No.i574 of 2OZ4 before the Hon,ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLps also frled arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts. 7. To a query being put to the leamed counsel for the Revenue,they have categorically accepted the fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of thesematters pending before it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. 8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court thatwas passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months havelapsed, titt date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the lncome Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underSection 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 ][stlll]initiating proceedings under [Section 148A ][of ][the ][Act ][and ][also]initiating proceedings under [Section ][148 ][of ][the ][Act ][in]contravention to the amendments [brought ][into ][the Income ][Tax Act]pursuant to the Finance Act,zO2O [as ][also the ][Finance ][Act ][2021 ]['] g. Upon a query being [put ][as ][to ][why ][can't this ][writ ][petition ][be]disposed of in the teeth of the [decision rendered ][by this ][Court in]the case of Kanakala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra), ][learned Standing]Counsel for the Income [Tax ][Department ][contends that ][those ][would]unnecessarily burden the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][where ][they]would be required to file [equal number ][of ][SLPs ][before ][the]Hon'ble Supreme Court [and ]it [would be ][further ][burdening ][the]exchequer of the Union of [India. It ][was ][also the contention ][of ][the]leamed Standing Counsel that [no ][prejudice ][would ][be ][caused ][to ][the]interest of the petitioners in [case ][if ][this ][writ ][petition ][is ][kept pending]till the finalization of the [SLPs ][pending before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court and the [fact ][that the ][petitioner is ][already ][enjoying]the benefit of interim [protection. ][Nonetheless, on ][the earlier ][query]of this Court as to why the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][have ][not ][come]out with a mechanism to [issue appropriate ][instructions ][or ][to ][take] appropflete steps in ensuring that proceedings under SeCtion l4gAofthe Act as also the assessment orders under Section I4g oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot beIimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. appropflete steps in ensuring that proceedings under SeCtion l4gAofthe Act as also the assessment orders under Section I4g oftheAct are kept in a hold in the light ofthe decisions dedcided by thevarious High Courts, it was submitted by the learned StandingCounsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be taken pan India and cannot beIimited to any of these jurisdictional High Courts. 10. As a result of which, what we are facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even though various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities concemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisionsof Section 15lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already got piled up before this HighCourt on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by thejudgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners\ insofar as the liberty [which was ][granted ][to ][the ][Revenue ][for]initiating fresh proceedings [strictly in ][accordance ][with ][the amended]provisions of the Act, as [amended ][by ][the ][Finance ][Act, ][2020 ][and]the Finance Act,202l. [The ][petitioner ][assessee ][would ][be ][entitled ][to]challenge or raise the other [legal objections ][if ][the ][Revenue ][initiates]fresh proceedings. The [Department ][has ][made ][no ][endeavour ][in]availing the said liberry [that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]have been [still ][sticking ][on ][to ][the ][stand, ][which ][this]contrary, they as well as [many other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held to ][be]High Court bad I l. It appears that because [ofthe ][aforesaid ][tiberty ][that ][this High]Court had granted [perrnitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings as a one-time measure [in ][a ][faceless manner, ][the]lncome Tax Department wants [to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]protracting these proceedings which [would ][enable them ][to ][meet the]timitation that would otherwise [come ][in ][the ][way. ][Likewise, ][if ][the]writ petition is kept pending [for ][a ][considerable long period ][of time]and finally at a later stage if [the ][Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court confirms]the decision taken by this [High ][Court ][as ][also by the ][other High]Courts in which the SLPs [are ][still ][pending, ][the ][lncome ][Tax] Department would get the advantage of the liberty [that ][is ][otherwise]protected in favour of the Revenue tbr initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthese matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue [and]would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far [as ][interest]of the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income [Tax]Departrnent gets an extended period of time for initiation [of ][fresh]proceedings. 12- The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, [despite]the clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy [(l ]supra), [is ][a]matter of grrve concern. The lncome Tax Department's [persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same [issue. ][This]deliberate approach not only undermines the [principle ][of judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment'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] 12- The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, [despite]the clear precedent set in Kanakala Ravindra Reddy [(l ]supra), [is ][a]matter of grrve concern. The lncome Tax Department's [persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same [issue. ][This]deliberate approach not only undermines the [principle ][of judicial]precedent but also strains the [judicial ]resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment'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] position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Department itself andshould have found out via media in ensuring that proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is already seized ofor, atleast the Income Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-4 and 148, 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 dccrsion if at all has to be taken, has to be takcn for the wholc uf tndia, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at theotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board. of Direct Taxes. Though the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department contendd thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of simitar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling ro reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of simitar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling ro reduce itspendency, such notices which are under challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee to knock the doors of this HighCourt resulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which inthe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesethe long run not only affects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedty, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in granting any interim protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majorityof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makeof High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to makethings further worse, the Income Tax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A andaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless maDner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue [whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating authority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Division Bench of theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., [:] "25. Mr Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to thedecision of thrs Court in Cornmissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the [co-]ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture [(P) ]Ltd. v. lTO13of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkami) was a member, [wherein]the Court categorically observed that the Revenue having [not]'accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it would [loose its]binding force Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court [in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Gorporation Ltd.l4, [the]Court observed that the approach of the officials of [Revenue ]oftreatrng decisions being ['not ]acceptable'was criticized [by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such decision, following are the [relevant]observatrons made by the Supreme Court. '' [(z0zs) [170 ][ta.\mann.com 422 ][(Bombay))]rr 1t9281 t l] ITR 589 (Bombay)' [t ]1202+1 [165 ][taxrnann.com 581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)]'t 1t9921 [raxnrann.com ][t6155 ] [(SC)] '' [(z0zs) [170 ][ta.\mann.com 422 ][(Bombay))]rr 1t9281 t l] ITR 589 (Bombay)' [t ]1202+1 [165 ][taxrnann.com 581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)]'t 1t9921 [raxnrann.com ][t6155 ] [(SC)] "6. Sd Reddy ls perhsps rlght ln saylng thal thoofficor3 w6re not rdu8tsd by eny mala fid€t inpasslng the lmpugned orders. They perhapsgenuincly f6lt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overiooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any ['factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by+assed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to gi\re effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized thal it is oftenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overiooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any ['factual]malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by+assed two appellate orders inregard to the same issue which were placed beforethem, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other ofthe Tribunal. The High Court has, in our view, rightlycriticized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors andthe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officers to gi\re effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized thal it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistantquasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers arebound by the decisions of the appellate authorities.The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on theAssistant Collectors working within his [jurisdiction ]andthe order of the Tribunal is binding upon the AssistantCollectors and the Appellate Collectors who functionunder the iurisdiction of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappelhte authorities should be followed unreservedlyby tfE subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an otiectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish nounder the iurisdiction of the Tribunal. The [principles ]ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappelhte authorities should be followed unreservedlyby tfE subordinate authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellate authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an otiectionable [phrase ]-and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeefl suspend€d by a cornpetent court- lf this healthybeefl suspend€d by a cornpetent court- lf this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws.of tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the leamedAdditional Solicitor General that the obsenationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. It is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparenttyunpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to curba tendency in revenue mafters which, if allo!rcd tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepa(ment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon them." 15. What is worrying tiris Bench more is the fact that anendeavour 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 whom have taken a consistent standthat the action ol the Income Tax Department being violative of the...( Financc Ac(, 2020 and Finanea Act, 2021, Now, in order trr proteetthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this juncture, if we dispose of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the disposal of the instant writ petition interms of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankunala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court.Kankunala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which were filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. I 6. In the given facts and circumstances, this Bench is of theconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtconsidered opinion that unless and until we do not timely disposeof matters which are squarely covered by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the decisions of the various otherHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedHigh Courts on the very same issue, the pendency of this HighCourt would further be burdened which otherwise can be decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 11 . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, the interest of the Revenue is concerned, of the Revenue is concerned, the Revenue is concerned, Revenue is concerned, is concerned, concerned, we are olthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has atreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphsthe considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has atreadybeen considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, the interest of the Revenue is concerned, of the Revenue is concerned, the Revenue is concerned, Revenue is concerned, is concerned, concerned, we are ol 36,37 and 38 of the order [which, for ][ready reference, is ][reproduced]hereunder: So far as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, as the interest of the Revenue is concerned, the interest of the Revenue is concerned, of the Revenue is concerned, the Revenue is concerned, Revenue is concerned, is concerned, concerned, we are ol 36,37 and 38 of the order [which, for ][ready reference, is ][reproduced]hereunder: 36. For all the aforesaid [reasons, the ][impugned notices]issued and the [proceedings ][drawn ][by the respoldelt-]Department is neither tenable, nor [sustainable.]The notices so issued and the [procedure adopted ][being]per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly [set]aside/quashed. As a consequence, [all the ][impugned]orders [getting ][quashed, the consequential ][orders ][passed]by the respondent-Department [pursuant ][to ][the ][notices]issued under Section 147 [and ][148 ][would ]also [get]quaihed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason [we]are [quashing ]the consequential [order ][is on ][the ][principles]that when the initiation of the [proceedings ][itself ][was]procedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also [gets]nullified automatically. 37. The [preliminary ]ob.iection [raised ][by ][the ][petitioner ][is]sustained and all these writ [petitions stands allowed ][on]this very [jurisdictional issue. ][Since ][the ][impugned ][notices]and orders are [getting quashed ]on [the ][point ][of]jurisdiction. we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues [raised ][by ]the [petitioner ][which]stands reserved to be raised [and ][contended ][in ][an]appropriate [proceed lngs.] 38. Since the [Hon'ble ][Supreme ][Court had, ][in ][the ][case]of Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a [one{ime ][measure]exercising the [powers ][under ][Article ][142 ][of ][the]Constitution of lndia, [permitted ][the ][Revenue ][to ][proceed]under the substituted [provisions, and this Court ][allowing]the petitions only on the [procedural ][flaw, ][the ][right] confened on the Revenue would remain reserved toproceed further if they so want frorn the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of AshishAgarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case ofKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra) is subjected to challengebefore the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of 2024,preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing ol the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of theaforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of thisHigh Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l stryra).This, in other words, would mean that either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate petition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant writ paition stands allowed infavour o{' the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionlsconcemed. As a consequence, the impugned notice underchallenge under Sections 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. I I IIII I ii I The consequential orders, [if ][any, also ][stand ][set ][aside/quashed ][in] similar terms as have been [passed ][by ][this ][High Court in ][the ][case ][of] Kankanala Ravindra [Reddy ][(l ][supra). ][There ][shall ][be ][no order ][as] to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous [petitions pending, ][if ][any, ][shall] stand closed 'o%',,f [ifliY'ft ][:t'EFRII] \I //TRUE SECTION To IOPUC]6. Two [CoPies]PSK.GJPw HIGH COURT DATED:3010412025 ORDER WP.No.27132 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS ,f* % W#tr \.)R[lHE ] ()2 [4 ] [2025]L l,