Wp/33475/2024 Of Primary Agricutural Cooperative Society Ltd Mannoor v. The Income Tax Officer

1344t [1] HIGH COURT FOR AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWO THOUSAND PRESENT THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY]ANDTHE HONOURABLE NG ] WRIT PETITION[NO: ][33475 OF][ 2024] Between: PRIMARYAGRICUTURALCpoPERATIVESoCIETYLTDMANNooR,Repbv'irt" cEo veruxniesfirdAR [DHANURE, ][s/o. ] [DHANURE' ][A3ed]I6oui +s [-v"Lis,- ][-Occupation. ][Business, ][Rl/o' ] [No ][7-27 ][MANNO(]iElnr.rcnru'A cuornAinr.tuR [RotugRD ][504308, Telangana' ][PAN'] , Assessment [Year. ][201 ][8-1 ][9] ...PETITIONER AND 1ThelncomeTaxOfficer,Ward'l,ManchiryallncomeTaxOffice,Ward2nd,fioor;'C;;ifu ; iospitat, [Bellampallv ][Roati' ][Manchiryal, Hvderabad 504209]Hyderabad [5041 ][06, Telangana.]fioor;'C;;ifu ; iospitat, [Bellampallv ][Roati' ][Manchiryal, Hvderabad 504209]Hyderabad [5041 ][06, Telangana.] 2. - The xvodti'6i',i,lr io*ers, Principal Chief [Commissioner ]AC Guards, [of ]Masab [lncome Tax, ]Tank, Hvderabad - 500028'[- ][Telangana ]9193f 'Telangana.Telangana. 3.TheCentralBoardofDirectTaxes'Represented.by..itsChairman,Departmentof Revenue, Ministry [of ][Finance, Government of ][lndia, secretarlat uullolngs,]New Delhi - 110 001.of Revenue, Ministry [of ][Finance, Government of ][lndia, secretarlat uullolngs,]New Delhi - 110 001. 4. The National Faceless [Assessment ][Center, ][lncome ][Tax ][Department, New]Delhi.Delhi. 5. - The Union of India, [Represented by ][its ][Secretary to the Government,]Oepartment of Revenu'e, Ministry oi Finance, New Delhi - 110 001'Oepartment of Revenu'e, Ministry oi Finance, New Delhi - 110 001' ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article [226 ][ol ][the constitution ][of ][lndia ][praying ][that in ][the]circumstances stated [in ][the ][affidavit filed therewith, ][the ][High Court ][may ][be ][pleased]tO i".u" an appropriate [writ, order or direction more particularly one ][in ][the ][nature of]writ of Mandamus, [declaring ][the ][order ][passed ][by ][the ][lncome ][Tax ][Authorities](National Faceless E-Assesiment [Centre) ][completed ][the ][assessment ] [147]i.w.s 144 read with section [1448 ][of the ][lncome-tax ][Act ][Date ][of ][23-02-2024, ] 2018-19/,,/ [|TBNASTtit147t2123-24t1061412554(1) ][for ][the ][Assessment ][year ] determining the total income of Rs.2,46,03,3321. as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law,without [jurisdiction, ]void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natuial justice apartfrom being violative of Articles 1 4, 1 9( 1 Xg) and 265 of the constitution of lndia and, Sec. the interests 1484 of of the justicelncome Tax Act, 1961 , and consequenfly set aside the same inwithout [jurisdiction, ]void-ab-initio, violative of the principles of natuial justice apartfrom being violative of Articles 1 4, 1 9( 1 Xg) and 265 of the constitution of lndia and, Sec. the interests 1484 of of the justicelncome Tax Act, 1961 , and consequenfly set aside the same in lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cPc praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affldavit filed in support of the petition, ine Hign court may be pleased tosuspend the order Under section ['l47r.w.s ]144 read with secfion 1448 of thelncome-tax Act Date ot 23-02-2024, DtN ITBA/ASTtst147t2o23-24t1061412ss4(1)for the Assessment Year 2018-19 determining the total income of Rs. 2,46,03,33il-and Demand notice u/s 156 of the lncome Tax act 1961, vide DIN and Notice No.lrBA/AST/s/15612023-2411061412681(1) Dt. 23-02-2024 for the assessment year2O18-19 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1.to 4: Ms. J SUNTTHA (JUNIOR SC FORrNcoME TAX) Counsel forthe Respondent No.S: SRt B. MUKHERJEE REPRESENTTNG SRIGADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. THANNERU CHAITANYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1.to 4: Ms. J SUNTTHA (JUNIOR SC FORrNcoME TAX) Counsel forthe Respondent No.S: SRt B. MUKHERJEE REPRESENTTNG SRIGADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTTCE P.SAM KOSHYANDTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAONANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.33475 OF 2024 ORDER, (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) Heard Mr.Thanneru Chaitanya Kumar, learned counselfor the petitioner, Ms.J.Sunitha, learned Junior Standing Counselfor the Income Tax Department for respondent Nos.1 to 4 andMr. B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing the Union of Indiafor respondent No.5. Perused the record. 2. This is a writ petition where the proceedings are eitherchallenged to the notices which were issued under Section 148Aand 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or theassessment orders those have been passed under Section 141 ofthe Act which have been assailed. 3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of thegrounds, that the notices issued under Section 1484. of the Actand the subsequent initiation ofproceedings under Section 148 ofthe Aci'lry the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, whereas in termsof the amendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder Section 148A ofthe Act as also under Section l4g oftheAct ought to have also been issued and proceeded in a facelessmanner.4. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of 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 Act,,2O2l i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l48A and Section 14g of the Actnot being issued in a faceless manner, have already been dealt withand decided by this Court in the case of KANKANALARAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICERI 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 consequentiar reliefs on theground ofit being in violation ofthe provisions ofSection l5lA ofthe Act read with Notification t8/2022 dated 29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large number of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms. The contention of the petitioner is that the issue contention of the petitioner is that the issue of 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 J 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also been decided against the Revenue by various High Courts i.e.,by the Bombay High Courr in rhe case of HEXAWAREby the Bombay High Courr in rhe case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andOF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the caseof RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, punjab andHaryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGUvs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case ofSRI VENKATARAMANA iTOOOY PATLOOLA VS. DEPUTYCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was inSRI VENKATARAMANA iTOOOY 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 internationalABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCoME TAx OFFICER,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on internationaltaxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal pradesh in thecase of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT,Gujarat High Courr in the case of MANSUKIIBHAI ' lzoz+1464 430 [(Bom)] ' lzoz+1464 430 [(Bom)] '1Q024) 156 taxmann-com 478 (Gauhati)l '1Q024) lE5{axmann,com I 15 (punjab & Haryana)l '12024) 167 taxmann.com 4l 1 (Telangana)l " [2024) [166 ]taxmann.com 679 (Bombay)] ' 12024) 165 taxmann.com I 1 3 (Himachai pradesh)l DAT]YABHAT RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3)(5)8, 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 Court in the case ofGIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.6. Even though the same issue having been decided by a largenumber of High Courts, we are still confronted with large filing ofidentical matters on daily basis ranging between 5 to I 0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought from theDepartment, they have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of the Bombay High Court in the case of HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided by this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy t2024 SCC Online Guj 4012'2025 SCC Online Jhar287'o 12023, [:4984-DBl] (1 supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special LeavePetition i.e., SLP No.3574 of 2024 before the Hon'ble SupremeCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Courl is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High CourtsCourt and the Hon'ble Supreme Courl is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out ofthesame issue being decided by various High Courts 1. To a query being put to the learned 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 ba5isand 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, till date, we do not find any remedial steps having beentaken by the Income Tax Department to take appropriate steps toeither hold back issuance of notice under Section 148A and underSection 148 of the Act by the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer,rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions by all the major High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section 148.4 of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section 148 of the Act incontravention to the amendments brought into the Income Tax Actpursuant to the Finance Act, 2020 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 Court inthe case of Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Department where theywould be required to file equal number of SLPs before theHon'ble Supreme Court and it would be further 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 frnalization of the SLPs pending before the Hon'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 comeout with a mechanism to issue appropriate instructions or to take I l I l appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148Aof the Act as also the assessment orders under Section 148 of theAct 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 lndia and cannot belimited 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 l51A 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(1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though whileallowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanukala RavindraReddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reseruing the right ofthe Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners insofar [as ][the ][liberty ][which was ][granted ][to ][the ] [evenue 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 ][liberty ][that ][was reserved ][for ][the ][Revenue' ][On ][the]contrary, [they ][have been ][still ][sticking ][on ][to ][the ][stand' ][which ][this]Court [as ][well ][as ][many other ][High ][Courts ][already ][held ][to ][be]High bad. -i 1 1. It [appears ][that ][because ][of ][the ][aforesaid ][liberty ][that ][this ][High]Court had [granted ][permitting ][the ][Revenue ][for ][initiating ][fresh]proceedings [as ][a ][one-time ][measure ][in ][a ][faceless ][manner' ][the]Income [Tax ][Department ][wants ][to ][take ][advantage ][of ][the ][same ][by]these [proceedings ][which would ][enable ][them to ][meet the]protracting Iimitation [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 ][Income ][Tax] Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwiseprotected in favour of the Revenue for initiation of freshproceedings from the disposal of these matters at a much later stagewhich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue andwould be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interestof the assesses are concemed. As a consequence, the lncome TaxDepartment gets an extended period of time for irutiation of fieshproceedings. 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kaaakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court,s decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal 12. The alarming trend of docket explosion in this Court, despitethe clear precedent set in Kaaakala Ravindra Reddy (l supra), is amatter of grave concern. The Income Tax Department,s persistentinitiation of fresh proceedings, disregarding the established judicialpronouncements, has led to an unprecedented surge in litigationwith over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. Thisdeliberate approach not only undermines the principle of judicialprecedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. TheDepartment's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court,s decision onpending SLPs while continuing to initiate fresh proceedingsappears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumventlimitation 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 providedadministrative efficiency and the respect for judicialpronouncements, particularly when this Court has already provideda balanced approach by preserving both the Revenue's rights andassesses lnterests.assesses lnterests. 13. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that in fact itshould have been realized by the Income Tax Deparlment 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 defenedwithout 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 Deparlment, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all ./ has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of India, and whichotherwise 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 contended thatthe Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition of similar nature, onthe one hand when the High Court is struggling to 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 liundreds of new writ [petitions ]which inthe long run not only dffects the disposal of the writ petitions butalso consumes substantial time of the Bench in hearing thesematters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, 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 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 makethings further worse, the Income Tax Departmentls showingaudacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and5, 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue u,hether it wasjustifiable 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., :following 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., : 148 through the jurisdictional Assessing Ofhcer whereas it oughtto have been only in the faceless manner. 14. In the case of BANK OF INDIA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an issue u,hether it wasjustifiable 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., :following 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 righfly drawn out attention to thedecision of this Coui in Commissioner 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. lTOr3of which one of us (Justice G.S. Kulkarni) was a member, whereinthe 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 itsbinding force. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court inUnion of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation Ltd.14, theCou( observed that the approach of the officials of Revenue oftreating decisions being "not acceptable,, was criticized by theSupreme Court- In such decision, following are the relevantobservations made by the Supreme Court. t,t.[(2025\ 170 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay)] '' |978) I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 1ZO2+1165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman452 (Bombay) 'a ltglZl [raxmann.com ]l6155 ELT 433 (SC) l.t t,t.[(2025\ 170 raxmann.com 422 (Bombay)] '' |978) I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) '3 1ZO2+1165 taxmann.com 581/300 Taxman452 (Bombay) 'a ltglZl [raxmann.com ]l6155 ELT 433 (SC) l.t "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that theofficers were not actualed by any mala fides inpassing the impugned orders. They perhapsgenuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was nottenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed 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, rightlytenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenuewould suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that weare not concerned here with the correctness orotherwise of their conclusion or of any factualmalafides but with the fact that the officers, in reachingin their conclusion, by-passed 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 officefs to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy- ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thethe harassment to the assessee caused by the failureof these officefs to give effect to the orders ofauthorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy- ltcannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is ofutmost importance that, in disposing of thequasuudicial 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 [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlybound 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 [jurisdiction ]of the Tribunal. The principles ofjudicial discipline require that the orders of the higherappellate authorities should be followed unreservedlyby the subordinale authorities. The mere fact that theorder of the appellaJe authority is not ["acceptable" ]tothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish nothe department - in itself an objectionable phrase -and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish noground for not following it unless its operation hasbeen suspended by a competent court. lf this healthybeen 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. rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 12. We have dealt with this aspect at some length,because it has been suggested by the learnedAdditional Solicitor General that [he 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 intended to curba tendency in revenue matters which, if allowed tobecome widespread; could result in considerableharassment to the assesses-public without any benefitto the Revenud. We would like to say that thedepartment should take these observations in theproper spirit. The observations of the High Courtshould be kept in mind in future and the utmost regardshould be paid by the adjudicating authorities and lheappellate 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 this 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 of the Income Tax Department being violative of the Finance Act, [2O2Oand ][Finance ][Act, ][2021' ][Now, ][in ][order ][to protect]the interest of [the ][Revenue ][as ][also ][that ][of ][the ][assessee, ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ][if ][we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation/direction [that ][the ][disposal ][of ][the instant ][writ ][petition ][in]terms of the [judgment ][rendered ][by ][this ][High ][Court ][in the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra [Retldy ][(1 ][supra) shall however be subject to]the outcome of [the ][SLPs ][which ][were ][filed by ][the ][Income ][Tax]and [which ][is ][pending consideration before the ][Hon'ble]Department Supreme Court. 16. In the [given facts ][and ][circumstances, ][this ][Bench ][is ][of ][the]considered opinion [that ][unless and ][until ][we ][do not ][timely ][dispose]of matters [which ][are ][squarely ][covered ][by the decision ][of ][this ][court]and which stands [fortified ][by ][the ][decisions ][of ][the ][various ][other]High Courts on [the ][very ][same issue, ][the ][pendency ][of ][this ][High]Courtwouldfurtherbeburdenedwhichotherwisecanbedecidedand disposed [of ][as a ][covered ][matter'] 17. So far as [the interest ][of ][the ][Revenue ][is ][concerned, ][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 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready reference, is reproduced hereunder: 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 consequenc€, all the impugnedorders getting quashed, the consequential orders passedby the respondent-Department pursuant to the noticesissued under Section 141 and 14g would also getquashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reason weare quashing the consequential order is on the principlesthat when the initiqtion of the proceedings itself wasprocedurally wrong, the subsequent orders also getsnullified automatically. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petilions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since lhe impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 37. The preliminary objection raised by the petitioner issustained and all these writ petilions stands allowed onthis very jurisdictional issue. Since lhe impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofjurisdiction, we are not inclined to proceed further anddecide the other issues raised by the petitioner whichstands reserved to be raised and contended in anappropriate proceedings. 38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, in the caseof Ashish Agarwal, supra, as a one{ime measureexercising the powers under Article 142 of thebonstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to proceedunder the substituted provisions, and this Court allowingthe petitions only on the procedural flaw, the right l I confened on the [Revenue ][would ][remain reserved ][to]proceed further [if ][they so ][want ][from ][the ][stage ][of ][the]order of the [Supreme ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of ][Ashish]AgaMal, suPra. 18.Wewouldonlyfurtherliketomakeobservationsthatsinceweareinclinedtodisposeoftheinstantwritpetition,consciousofthe fact that [the earlier order ][of ][this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kanakala [Ravindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][supra) ][is ][subjected ][to ][challenge]before the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court ][in ][SLP No'3574 ][of ][2024']the [Income ][T.ax ][Department, ][we ][make ][it ][clear ][that]preferred by of [the instan[ ][writ ][petition ][is ][subject ][to ][outcome ][of ][the]allowing aforesaid SLP [preferred by the ][Revenue against ][the decision ][of ][this]High Court in [the ][case ][of ][Kanakala Ruvindra ][Reddy ][(1 ][st4ra)']This, in other [words, ][would ][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]Court in the [pending ][SLP on the ][very ][same ][issue'] 19. Accordingly, [the ][instant ][writ ][petition ][stands ][allowed ][in]favouroftheassesseesofarastheissueofjurisdiction1Sconcerned. As [a]consequence, [the ][impugned ][notice ][under]challenge under [Sections ][148-A ][and ][148 stands set aside/quashed'] fhe consequential orders, if any, also stand set aside/quasheil insimilar terms as have been passed by this High Court in the case ofKankanala Ravindra Reddy (l supra). There shall be no order asto costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKARASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//SErh*OFFICER To, l.ThelncomeTaxOfficer,Wardl,ManchiryallncomeTaxOffice'Ward2nd' noor, nJuinOii Hospital, Bellampally Roati, Manchiryal, Hyderabad 504209Hyderabad [5041 ]06, [Telangana.]noor, nJuinOii Hospital, Bellampally Roati, Manchiryal, Hyderabad 504209Hyderabad [5041 ]06, [Telangana.] 2. - The f-fvO"rioi'J,-lT Principal Chief Towers, [Commissioner ]AC Guards, [of ]Masab [lncome Tax, ]Tank, Hyderabad - 500028,[- ][Telangala ]919^4f [,]Telangana.Telangana. 3. - The oi neuenje, central Board trlinistry [of Direct ]of Finance, [Taxes, ]Goveinment of lndia, [Represented by its ]Secretariat Buildings,[chairman, ][Department]New Delhi - 110 [001 ][.]New Delhi - 110 [001 ][.] 4. The National Faceless [Assessment Center, ][lncome ][Tax ][Department, New]Delhi.Delhi. 5. The Secretary to the [Government, ][Department of ][Revenue, ][Ministry ][of]Finance, New Delhi [- ][110 ][001 ][.]Finance, New Delhi [- ][110 ][001 ][.] 6. One CC to SRl. [Advocate ] ] 7. One CC to Ms. J SUNITHA [(JUNIOR ] [TAX) ] ] g. one cc to sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Deputy solicitor General of lndia IoPUC] Two CD CopiesKKS PVLV HIGH COURT DATED:2810412025 ORDER WP.No.33475 ot 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONWITHOUT COSTS -41r. [t'tC ][S][ 14]i4:./;oI .,-,c(r'o29 AUE 206-l+nP/,iCrrF(]