Vijay Kumar Sharma v. Income Tax Officer And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,SHIMLA CWP No. 14859 of 2024 Date of decision: 17.9. 2025 Vijay Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner. Versus Income Tax Officer and others. …Respondents. CorumHon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja), Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] For the Petitioner. Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents:Mr.Neeraj Sharma and Mr.Ishan Kahsyap,Advocates, for respondents-Income TaxDepartment. Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr.Shiv PalManhans, Senior Panel Counsel andMr.V.B. Verma and Mr.Rajinder Thakur,CGCs for Union of India. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:- “(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ in thenature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order ordirection, thereby quashing/setting aside the impugnednotice under Section 148 dated 27.8.2024 (Annexure P-3)being illegal, without jurisdiction, against the procedure andnature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order ordirection, thereby quashing/setting aside the impugnednotice under Section 148 dated 27.8.2024 (Annexure P-3)being illegal, without jurisdiction, against the procedure and further based on the illegal sanction/approval underSection 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and allproceedings/actions consequent thereto.” 2.The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby thelegality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated27.8.2024 (Annexure P-3) is already under consideration before the Hon’bleSupreme Court of India in SLP (c) No. 17040/2024, titled as The AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr. Reddy LaboratoriesLtd. with connected matters. 3. Since the issue involved in this petition is already pendingconsideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, keeping in view thejudicial discipline, we refrain ourselves from giving our opinion with respect toimpugned notice under Section 148, dated 27.8.2024 (Annexure P-3), asassailed in this petition. We direct that the present petition shall be governed bythe judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto,shall be binding on this case also. 5. The continuity of proceedings before the competent authority, inview of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is boundto lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to stay suchproceedings till the time issue is finally decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.Ordered accordingly. 6. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. 17[th] September, 2025(MS) (Sushil Kukreja), Judge.