Wp/31353/2024 Of Primary Agricultural Cooperative Credit Society Limited Marepally v. The Income Tax Officer

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIRPT DAY OF MAYTWO THOUSAND ANP TWENTY FIVE PRESEIItTTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUISTICE P.SAM KOSHYAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANOIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO:1353 0F 2024 Between: PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL COOPERAIIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITEDMAREPALLY, Rep. by the Secretary CHAK,ALI SANGAMESHWAR S/o. YADAIAH,Aged about 35 years, Occupation. Businesd. Flo. PLT SOCIETY DOOR NO 5 2MAREPALLY VILLAGE, KONDAPUR MANDAL, MEDAK 502306, Telangana, lndia.PAN. , Assessment Year. 2018r19. .....PETITIONER AND 1. The lncome Tax Officer, Ward 1, SangQreddy lncome Tax Office,Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, leerabhadra Nagar, Sangareddy,Telangana.Veerabhadra Nagar, New Bus Stand, leerabhadra Nagar, Sangareddy,Telangana. 2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of lnpome Tax - Telangana and A.P,Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, tr,4abab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028,Telangana.Hyderabad, lT Towers, AC Guards, tr,4abab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028,Telangana. 3. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, Reqresented by its Chairman. Departmentof Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Goverhment of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - ['1 ]10 001 .of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Goverhment of lndia, Secretariat Buildings,New Delhi - ['1 ]10 001 . 4. The National Faceless Assessment Cefiiter, lncome Tax Department, NewDelhi.Delhi. 5. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary to the Government,Department of Revenue, Ministry of Fingnce, New Delhi - 110 001 .Department of Revenue, Ministry of Fingnce, New Delhi - 110 001 . .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Corlstitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may becircumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one inthe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the lncome Taxthe nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the lncome Tax Authorities (Nationar Faceress E-Assessment centre) cc,mpreted the assessmentu/s 147 r.w.s 144 Date of 06-0g'-2024, DrN |rBA/AST/S/14712023_24/1062098672(1 ) for the Assessment year 201g-19 deh_,rmining the totar incomeof Rs 51 ,45,994r - as arbitrary, iregar, bad in raw, wittrout jurisdiction, void-ab-initio, viorative of the principres of naturar justice aparr from being viorative of- Articles 1 , I 9( 1 Xg) and 265 of the Constitution of lndia and Sec. 1 48A of thelncome Tax Act, 1961, and consequenfly set aside the same in the interests ofjustice. l.A.NO:1 OF 2024 Petition Under Section 15 j CpC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Crturt may be pleased tosuspend the order Under section 14Z r.w.s 144 Date of 06_03_2024, DINlrBA/AST/s/i4Tr2o23-24t1062098612(1) for the Assessment year 2018_19determining the totar income of Rs. 51,45,gg4/-. and Demand notice u/s 156 0fthe rncome Tax act 1961, vide DrN and Notice No. rrBA/AST/s/, 5 612023-2411062098726(j ) Dt 06-03- 2024 for the assessment year 2018-19 pendingdisposal of the above writ petition. Counset for the petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA. KUMAR 9::l:_"] lNcoME [for ]TAX)[the Respondent ][Nos.1 & ][2 ][: ]Ms. J.SUN|THA I,JUN|OR SC FOR 99YI.'9] I". [thE ][RESPONdEN.I.NOS.3 ][tO ]5 : SRl GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTYSOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOTJRABLE SRJJUETICE P.SAM KOSHYAND iTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUETICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION N0.31353 of 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'bte Sri Justtce P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kunpr, learned counsel for theipetitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha) leamed Junior Standing Counsel foripetitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha) leamed Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Departrnent for thi respondents. Perused theirecord.irecord. I Counset for the petitioner : SRI THANNERU CHAITANYA. KUMAR 9::l:_"] lNcoME [for ]TAX)[the Respondent ][Nos.1 & ][2 ][: ]Ms. J.SUN|THA I,JUN|OR SC FOR 99YI.'9] I". [thE ][RESPONdEN.I.NOS.3 ][tO ]5 : SRl GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTYSOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOTJRABLE SRJJUETICE P.SAM KOSHYAND iTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUETICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION N0.31353 of 2024 ORDER: (per Hon'bte Sri Justtce P.Sam Koshy) Heard Mr. T.Chaitanya Kunpr, learned counsel for theipetitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha) leamed Junior Standing Counsel foripetitioner and Ms.J.Sunitha) leamed Junior Standing Counsel forthe Income Tax Departrnent for thi respondents. Perused theirecord.irecord. I I2. This is a writ petition wherq the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or rheassessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 ofthe Act which have been assailed. i. This writ petition is being take{r up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued undler Section l48A ol ihe Actand the subsequent initiation of procgedings under Section 148 ofthc Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Ollicer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought tQ the Income ['[ ]ax Act by wayol' F-inance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04r20f I onrrards, proceedings under Section l48A of the Act as also under S,:ction 148 of theAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner. 4. The contention ol the petitioner is that the issue contention ol the petitioner is that the issue ol the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance ,\ct, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section 1484 and Section 148 of the Actnot being issued in a laceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case ol' KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERT decidedon 14.09.2023 w,hereby a batch of writ petitions were allowed andthe proceedir-rgs initiated under Section.1484. as i so under Section148 olthe Acr lvere held to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground ol'it hcing in violation of the provisions of Section l5lA ofthe Act read rvith Notification 1812022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgmcnt passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large nunrbe r ol writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms The contention ol the petitioner is that the issue contention ol the petitioner is that the issue ol the petitioner is that the issue the petitioner is that the issue petitioner is that the issue is that the issue that the issue the issue issue of '(2021) l-i6 taxrnann.corn I78 (I'elangana)] ) 5. Down the line, we find thatl the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue byvanous High Cours i.e.,by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASfISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseoI RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UT.TION OF INDIA3, PunJab andIlaryana High Court in the case of IATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA *TOTIY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXS where the issue was inrcspect of intemational taxation, Bofibay High Court in the case ofABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAII vs INCOME TAX OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATIOIt' which is again on internationalte\ation and central circle, High Colrrt of Himachal Pradcsh in thecuse of GOVIND SINGH vs. XNCOME TAX OFFICERT,(iLrjarat High Court in the tase of MANSTIKHBHAI ' 1:o:+1 [,164 ] [430 ][(Bom) ] l I [( ][1024 ]) [56 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhafi)l] l(1011) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punja! ][& ][Haryana)l] []021) [167 ][taxmann.com ][411 ][(Telang4na)l] ll0l+) [t66 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]llul-l) [165 ][ra\mann.com ] [l3 ][(Himaclal ][Pradesh)l] ' 1:o:+1 [,164 ] [430 ][(Bom) ] l I [( ][1024 ]) [56 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhafi)l] l(1011) [165 ][taxmann.com ][115 ][(Punja! ][& ][Haryana)l] []021) [167 ][taxmann.com ][411 ][(Telang4na)l] ll0l+) [t66 ][taxmann.com ][679 ][(Bombay)l]llul-l) [165 ][ra\mann.com ] [l3 ][(Himaclal ][Pradesh)l] DAIIYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAx OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SIfyAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case of SHARDA DEVI CHHAJER vsr. INCOME TAXOFFICER & ANOTHER and batch of wrir petitionsr0 whichstood decided on 19.03.2024. Similar views have also 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 on 25.09.2024.6. Even though rhe samc issue having been clecided by a largenumber of High courls. rvc are stilI confronted u,ith large filing ofidentical matrers on daily basis ranging between 5 to 10 writpetitions. That upon the irrstructions being sought from theDepartment, they lrave becn taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the llornba,v lJigh Court in the caie of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in rhc case ol Kanakala Ravindra Reddy8202+ SCC Ont_inc Cu j .1012'2025 SCC OnI ine.thar lltTo1zo23 ' : RJ-JD;1q84-t)t| | (l supra) has been subjected to Ohallenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Coun l, seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed 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 thq fact that there is no interimorder granted by the Hon'ble Suppeme Court in any of thesematters pending betbre it. Meanvlhile, fresh writ petitions ofidentical naturc are being pited up before this Bench on daily basisand the pendency is getting increasd on matter which otherwisehas already bcen dealt and decided by this very High Court itself. E. On rhc one hand, even thoug! the order of this Court that*as passcd as carly as on 14.09.20f,3 and more 16 months havelapsecl, rill dntc, we do not find any remedial steps having beentakcn bv thc [ncorne 1-ax Departmenf to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and underScction I .l[i o I the Act by the jurildictional Assessing Officer,rathcr thc authonties concemed in thg teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 14gA of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section l4g of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Irinance Act,2020 as also the Finance Act 2021.9. Upon a query being pur as ro why can,t this writ petition bedisposed of in the teeth or'the decision rendered by this court inth e case of Kanakala Ravindra Rccld_y( I supra), leamed Standingcounsel for the Income Tax Depirrtment contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the lnconte Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal nurnber of SLps before theHon'ble Supreme court and it ir ould be furt'er burdening theexchequer of the union of India. It rvas arso the contention of the@!'<l,.!l|'9Yr-rc.{rr5(tlr!,(lJuL.r|/plt,pr(d!Urr1J!1u(/tIU1rb'U.-l_L.v!ors.9-!.;.lJi1jli-::,':.....--:learned Standing counser that no,re_iudice woul,r be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case ir'this ,,vrit petiti,rn is kept pendingtill the finalization of the SLI)s pending belbre the Hon,bleSupreme Court and thc lact that the petitioner is already enjoyingthe benefit of interim protecrion. \onctheress. o. trre earrier queryof this court as to why the Incc'rr:rc fax Department have not comeout with a mechanisrn to issue al..,propriate instntctions or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section [148,{]of the Act as also the assessment ofders under Section 148 of theAct are kept in a hold in the tight of the decisions dedcided by thevanous High Courts, it was submltted by the leamed StandingCounsel that the said steps can only 1be taken at the level of CBDTas any such steps would have to be [aken Pan India and cannot belimited to any of these [jurisdictional ]Ftigh Court". 10. As a result of which, whatweare facing is steep increase oflitigation day in and day out even thpugh various orders have beenpassed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the very sameissue. The Income Tax authorities cpncemed are still even now in2025 also initiating proceedings in dontravention to the [provisions]of Section t 5l A ol the Act and as al result by now, more than 600to 700 petitions have been already igot [piled ]up before [this High]Couft on an issuc rrhich otherwise $tands squarely covered by [the]judgment of tlris C--ourt in the case lof Kanakala Ravindra Reddy(l supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the rvrit petitions in thei case of Kanakala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division BenQh while reserving the right ofthe Revenue. has also protected [qhe ]interest of the [petitioners] r. insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedaS -Well-aS many -Otner t1lqn LOUftS alreaov.nel(l,O O" '.' ".,:;.ri&;"8t.:aaprovisions of the Act, as amended by the FinarLce Act, 2020 andthe Finance Act,202l. The petitioner assessee would be entitled tochallenge or raise the other legal objections if the Revenue initiatesfresh proceedings. The Department has made no endeavour inavailing the said liberty that was reserved fbr the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been sti[[ sticking on ro rhe srand, which thisHigh Court as well as many other High Courls already held to bebad ffi;l*if==..rlrqn:iuoun 11. It appears that because ofthe aforesaid lib,:rry' that this HighCourt had granted permitting the Revenr.re lt,r initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a lacc lcss manner, theIncome Tax Department wants to take ad,,,antagc of the same byprotracting these proceedings which rvould cnable them to meet thelimitation that would otherwise come iu the r,'"av. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considcrable lc,ng period of timeand finally at a later stage if the llon'bte Suplenre C--ourl confirmsthe decision taken by this High Courr as also b,y the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending. the lncome Tax - Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal ofthdse matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous apd detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the Income TaxDepartment gets an extended periofr ol time for initiation of freshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakalo Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. ['['he ]lncon]re Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprccedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piting up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only' underinines the principle of [judicial]precedent but also straills the,iLrdici4l resources unnecessarily. TlreDepartment's strateg) ot'au'aiting tfe Supreme Court's decision onIpending SLPs w'hile continuins to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated rnove to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rathcr thar) adhering to the established legal 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kanakalo Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concem. ['['he ]lncon]re Tax Department's persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established [judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprccedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piting up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only' underinines the principle of [judicial]precedent but also straills the,iLrdici4l resources unnecessarily. TlreDepartment's strateg) ot'au'aiting tfe Supreme Court's decision onIpending SLPs w'hile continuins to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated rnove to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rathcr thar) adhering to the established legal position. Such conduct raises serious questions about theadministrative effrciency and the respect lor judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already providedpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses interests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be consider.ed is that in lact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Deparlnrcnt itsellandshould have found out via media in ensuring thar proceedingsunder Sections 148-4 and 148 should not havt: been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supremc Court decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLPs which it is alre:rdv scizcd of or, atleast the Income Tax Department should har.,t: lirurtrl out solneremedial steps to ensure that wherever the au-horitics intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and l18. orhcr. rhan in afaceless manner, the proceedings should ha.,.e bccn clelen.edwithout precipitating the matter further intinratinq rhc essessee thatthey shall initiate appropriate proceedings only iLficr thc S[.p's ar.edecided by the Hon'ble Supreme Courr on rhe\ cr\ slul'le I ssueThis again, the Income Tax Department, has nor hecn uhlc to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such ir clccisron il'at all a has to be taken, has to be taken for rthe who.le of India, and whichotherwise has to be by way of a policy decision and that too at thelevel of Central Board of Direcr rTaxes. Though the leamedStanding Counsel for the lncome Tfx Department contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Couit is struggling to reduce itspendency, such notices which areunder challenge in this writpetition are forcing the assessee toit"[ock ][the doors ]of this HighICourt resulting in filing of hundredslof 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 thesematters again and again on daily basSAdrnittedly, in spite of thematter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court having been taken onmany occasions, the Hon'ble Suprerlc Courr which is seized of thematter has been reluctant in grantinIanf interirn protection to theIncome Tax Department. Yet, the authorities concemed at theState level are not ready to accept thp verdict passed by a maj orityiof High Courts of different States ori the sarne issue; and to makethings further worse, the lncome ilax Department is showingaudacity by issuing notices continuo.|slv under Sections 148-A andL 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless maruler. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue wherher ir rvasjustifiabte on the part of the Income Tax t)epartment in norfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating aurhority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divis.ion Bench ol theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Officer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless maruler. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANTCOMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue wherher ir rvasjustifiabte on the part of the Income Tax t)epartment in norfollowing an order passed by the adjudicating aurhority only on theground that the appeals are pending, the Divis.ion Bench ol theHigh Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as under, viz., : "25. Mr. Paridwalla has righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Court in Commissioner of lncomr: Tax vs. Smt.Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision of the co_ordinate Bench of this Court in Samp Furniture (F,) Ltd. v. lTO,3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a mermber, wherernthe Court categorically observed that the Revenue having not"accepted" the judgment of the High Court would not mean that trlhe same is set aside in a manner known to law, it ,,vould loose itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Sugrreme Court rnUnion of lndia vs, Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.,1, theCourt observed that the approach of the officials rtf Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court. ln such decision, following ar€! lhe relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. ]l [ttzozsl ][170 ][raxmann.co ][m ][422 ][(Bombay)l]'' ltqz8l I3 tfR 589 (Bombay) ' [2021] 165 raxmann.com 581/300 Taxman 452 (Bornbar ) 't Jtoozl [raxmann.com ]16/55ELT 433 (SC) "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps riqht in saying that [the]officers were not actuated fY . [anY ][mala ][fides ][in]passing the impugned ordprs. TfEy [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 Re$dV [overlooks ][is ][that ][we]are not concerned here wiih [the ][correctness ][or]otheMise of their conclusign 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 whlch [were placed ][before]them, one of the Collector [(Atpeals) ][and ][the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. The [High ][Court ]in our view, rightly,has. criticized this conduct of the [dssistant ][Collectors ][and]the harassment to the assessfe [caused ][by ][the ][failure]of these officers to [give ][effect ][to ][the ][orders ][of]authorities higher to them [in ][the ][appellate ][hierarchy. ][lt]cannot be too vehemently einphasized [lhat ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance that, disOosing of theln quasUudicial issues before th1m, revenue offtcers [are]bound by the decisions of ttie [appellate ][authorities]The order of the Appellte [Cotlector rs brnding ][on ][the]IAssistant Collectors [working ]hrs lurisdictron andYlthrn the order of the Tribunal [is ][birfding ][upon the Assistant]Collectors and the [Appellate ][icollectors who ][f ][unctton]under the [jurisdiction ]of [the ][Trlbunal ][The ][prrnciples ][of]judicial discipline require that ithe orders of the [hrgher]appellate authorities should f [followed unreservedly]by the subordinate authoritiesr [The ][mere ][fact that ][the]order of the appellate [autnonly ][is ][not -acceptabte ][to]the department - in itself [a]nlobjectronable [phrase ]-and is the subject [mafter of]n appeal can [furnish ][no]1ground for not following it,1nless its operatron [has]been suspended [by ][a ][compelent court]lf thrs healthy rule is not followed, the result Wll only be undueharassment toassesses and chaos in adrninistrationof tax laws.harassment toassesses and chaos in adrninistrationof tax laws. rule is not followed, the result Wll only be undueharassment toassesses and chaos in adrninistrationof tax laws.harassment toassesses and chaos in adrninistrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at sorne length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that the observationsmade 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 intenderd to curba tendency in revenue mafters which, if ailowed tobecome widespread, could result in considerableharassment to the assesses_public without any benefitto the Revenue. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observation:; in theproper spirit. The observations of the Higrh Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmo$t regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscrptine and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindrngon them." 15. Whar isWhar isis 15. Whar isWhar isisworrying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensur) not to generatelurther litigatiorr on issues which have been laid to rest by a largcnumber of High Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat thc action of the lncome Tax Department being violative olthe Finance Act, 2020 and Finance Act, 2021. Now, in order to protectthe interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would betrite at this [j ]uncture, if we disposp of the writ petition with anobservation/direction that the dispoqal of the instant wrir petition intenns of the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supfa) shall however be subject tothe outcome of the SLPs which r,tere filed by the Income TaxDepartment and which is pending consIideration before the Hon'bleSupreme Court. 16. In the given facts and circurinstances, this Bench is of theIconsidered opinion that unless and pntil we do not timely disposeIol'rnatters which are squarely covergd by the decision of this Courtand which stands fortified by the pecisions of ttrc various otheriHigh Courts on the very same issYe, the pendency ol this l{ighCourt would further be burdened wlhich otherrvise can bc decidedand disposed of as a covered matter. 11 . So far as the interest of the Rpvenue is concerned, u,e are olthe considered opinion that the interlest of the Revcnue has alreadybccn considered and protected, as h4s been observed in paragraphs 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder: Er-=rPr&iFE*ltsf:1 ..-- 36. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned noticesissued and the proceedings drawn by the respondent-Department is neither tenable, nor sustainable.The notices so issued and the procedure adopted beingper se illegal, deserves to be and are accordingly setaside/quashed. As a consequence, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential onjers passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 147 and 148 would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on tl-e principlesthat when the initiation of the proceedings; itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent ordem also gets-r"-:'i'l '"nullified automatically. 37. The preliminary ob.jection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on thL' point oflurisdiction, [we ][are ][not ][inclined ]to [proceed ]further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedrngs. 37. The preliminary ob.jection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petitions stands allowed onthis very [jurisdictional ]issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on thL' point oflurisdiction, [we ][are ][not ][inclined ]to [proceed ]further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedrngs. 38 Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal supra as a one-time measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of theConstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on lhe procedural flaw, the right/.l confened on the Revenue would remain reserved !oproc€ed further if they so w4nt from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Cou{t in the case ofAshishAgaMal, supra. 18.We would only further like td make observarions that sincewe are inclined to dispose of the ins{ant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in the case olKanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supp) is subjected to challengebelore the Hon'ble Supreme Courf in SLP No.3574 ol 2024,prelerred by the Income Tax Deparfment, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of thealoresaid SLP preferred by the Reve4ue against the decision ol thistligh Court in the case of Kanakall Ravindra Reddy (l supra).l'his, in other words, would mean th{t either of the parties, if theyso want, may move an appropriate p[tition seeking revival of thiswrit petition in the light of the dec ion rsof the Hon'ble SupreureiCourt in thc pending SLP on the very same issue. 19. Accordingly, the instant wri(petitionstands a[[ou,ed inlavour of the assessee so far as the issue of jurisdictionIScotrcemed. As a consequence, {he impugned notice undcrchallenge under Sections 148-A and il48 stands set aside/quashed I The consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quashed insimilar terms as have been passed by this High C)ourt in the case ofKankanola Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There strall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pen,1ing, if any, shallstand closed HIGH COURTDATED:01 10512025 .J?[1 ][ll ] [.., ][i.r, ]/. [.]_ t\1,)2l A|JE [20[]\,..,./i\\i.i/- : rr- '.i\tr:=--ORDERWP.No.31353 of 2024 ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT COSTS. \09 "fi