Wp/33806/2024 Of Tecumseh Products India Private Limited v. '[(2023) 156 Rarnranrr.com I 78 ('Felangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHYANOTHE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO: 33806 OF 2024 Between: Tecumseh Products lndia Private Limited, Survey No. 6671P And 7B4lP,Medchal S.O., Kistapur, K.V. Rangareddy 501401, Telangana, lndia, Rep. byits CFO, Ms. Ruchi Babbar .,.PETITIONER AND 1The Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle-2( l), Room No. 514, sthFloor, Signatures Tower, Hyderabad, Telangana.Floor, Signatures Tower, Hyderabad, Telangana. aThe Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax ll, Seventh Floor, A Block, lncomeTax Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank HyderabadTax Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank Hyderabad 3. The Union of lndia, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government oflndia, North Block, New Delhilndia, North Block, New Delhi ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in thecircumstances stated. in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may bepleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particu la rly in thenature of MANDAMUS under article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia, directing that(a) The lmpugned Order dated 2710812024 passed under section 14BA(d) of the lTAct may be quashed by holding the same as arbitrary, illegal and void. and (b) Thelmpugned Notice dated 2710812024 passed under section 148 of the lT Actthereby initiating the reassessment proceedings for AY 2O1B-19 may be quashedby holding the same as arbitrary, illegal and void. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated inthe affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grantstay all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Order passed under section14BA (d) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, r.w. the impugned notice issued undersection 148 of the lT Act, both dated2T-08-2024,by1he First Respondent pendingdisposal of the above Wrrt Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HARPREET SINGH AJMANI, REPRESENTINGSRI G. NARENDRA CHETTY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MS. B. SAPNA REDDY,BoKARO SAPNA REDDY (Jr. Sc FOR INCOME TAX) Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR,DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENEAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOT]RABLE [JUSTrcE ][P.SAM ] ANDTHE HONOURABLE NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITIONNo.33806 [of2024] QRDEB, [@er ][Hon'ble ][Sri ][Justice ][P.Sam ][Koshy)] Heard Mr. Harpreet [Singh Ajmani, ][leamed ][counsel]Mr.G.Narendra [Chetty, ][leamed ][counsel ][for ][the]representing petitioner and Ms. [B.Sapna ][Reddy, leamed ][Junior ][Standing]Counsel for the [lncome ][Tax ][Department ][for ][respondent ][Nos'l]and 2. 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.] 3. This writ petition [is being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices [issued ][under ][Section ][l48A of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent [initiation of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][*u, ][Uirlf,t ][to ][the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way] 3. This writ petition [is being taken ][up ][today ][only ][on ][one ][of ][the]grounds, that the notices [issued ][under ][Section ][l48A of ][the ][Act]and the subsequent [initiation of ][proceedings under ][Section ][148 ][of]the Act by the [jurisdictional ][Assessing ][Officer' ][whereas ][in ][terms]of the amendment [that ][*u, ][Uirlf,t ][to ][the Income ][Tax ][Act ][by way] of Finance Act. 202 I w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedingsunder 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 is that the issue ofproceedings being in violation of the Finance Act, 2021 i.e., theimpugned notices under Section l4gA and Section l4g 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 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 Acr wcre hcld to be bad with consequential reliefs on theground of it being in vioration of the provisions of Section r5rA ofthe Act read with Notification lg/2022 dated29.03.2022. The saidjudgment passed by this Court has also been subsequently followedin a large nunrber of writ petitions which were allowed on similarterms I 5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also beendecided against the Revenue by various High Courts [i.e.,]by the Bombay High Court in the case of HEXAWARETECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati [High ][Court in ][the ][case]of RAM NARAYAN SAII vs. UNION OF INDIAT, [Punjab ][and]Haryana High Court in the case of JATINDER SINGH vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court [in the ][case ]ofSRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA [VS. ] COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 [where ][the ][issue ][was ][in]respect of international taxation, Bombay [High ][Court in ][the ][case ][of]ABHIN ANILKUMAR SHAH vs. INCOME TAX [OFFICER']INTERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which [is ]again [on ][intemational]taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh [in ][the]case ol GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX [OFFICER?,]Gujarat High Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI'7zoz11464 [430 ][(Bom)]'[(2024) [156 ][taxmann.com 478 ][(Gauhati)]]^ [(2024) 165 taxmann.com [1 ][l5 ][(Pt4iab ][& ][I{aryana)]]' [2024) [167 ][taxmann.com ][4l ][i ][(Telangana).1]' [2024) [166 ][taxmann.com 679 ][(Bombay)]]'[2024) [165 ][taxmann.com ] [(Himachal ][Pradesh)]] DAHYABHAI RADADIYA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3(3X5)6, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAMSUNDAR SAW vs. UNION OF lNDIAe, Rajasthan High Court inthe case ol SI{ARDA 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 [(;OPAL ]DALMIA vs. IINION OF INDIA & ORS(M.A.T 1690 o12023), 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 nratlers on daily basis ranging between 5 to l0 writpetitions. That upon the instructions being sought fi'om theDepartment, the1, have been taking a solitary ground that thedecision of thc Bornbay High Court in the case ol' HexawareTechnologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one which has beendecided b1 this Court in the case of Kanakala Ravindro Reddy '202+ [onl.ine ][Gu.i ][4012]"2025 SCC Onl.ine Jhar 287'o 12023, [RJ-JD:4984-t)B ]I"2025 SCC Onl.ine Jhar 287'o 12023, [RJ-JD:4984-t)B ]I '202+ [onl.ine ][Gu.i ][4012]"2025 SCC Onl.ine Jhar 287'o 12023, [RJ-JD:4984-t)B ]I"2025 SCC Onl.ine Jhar 287'o 12023, [RJ-JD:4984-t)B ]I (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 Court is seized of the matter.In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arising out of thesame issue being decided by various High Courts.7. 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 basisand the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwisehas already been dealt and decided by this very High Court irself. 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 l48A 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 rna.ior High Courts in India are continuously stillinitiating proceedings under Section l48A of the Act and alsoinitiating proceedings under Section I48 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 Ravindru Reddy (l supra), learned StandingCounsel for the Income Tax Department contends that those wouldunnecessarily burden the Income Tax Departrnent rvhere 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 rvould be caused to theinterest of the petitioners in case if this writ petition is kept pendingtill the finalization ol 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 rnechanism to issue appropriate instruftio-hs or to take appropriate steps in ensuring that [proceedings ]under Section [l48A]of the Act as also the assessment orders under Section [148 ][of ][the]Act are kept in a hold in the light of the decisions [dedcided ][by ][the]various High Courts, it was submitted by the [leamed ][Standing]Counsel that the said steps can only be taken at [the level ][of CBDT]as any such steps would have to be taken [Pan ][India ][and cannot ][be]limited to any of these [jurisdictional ][High ][Courts.] 10. As a result of which, [what we ]are [facing is ][steep increase ][of]litigation day in and day out even though [various ][orders have ][been]passed by this High Court allowing writ petitions on the [very ][same]issue. The Income Tax authorities concerned [are ][still ][even ][now ][in]2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention [to ][the provisions]of Section l5l A of the Act and as a [result by now, more ][than ][600]to 700 petitions have been already [got piled ][up ][before ][this High]Court on an issue which otherwise stands [squarely covered ][by ][the]judgment of this Court in the case of Kanakala Rovindra Reddy( 1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact [that though while]allowing the writ petitions in the case of [Kanakala ][Ravindra]Reddy (l supra), the Division Bench [while ][reserving ][the ][right ][of]the Revenue, has also protected the [interest ][of ][the ][petitioners] insofar as the liberty which was granted to the Revenue forinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance 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 for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on ro the stand, which thisHigh Court as u,ell as many other High Courts alreadv held to bebadI l. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberry that this HighCourt had [granted permitting ]the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome [Tax ][Depaftment ]wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation [that ][would ]otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Taxinitiating fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the amendedprovisions of the Act, as amended by the Finance 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 for the Revenue. On thecontrary, they have been still sticking on ro the stand, which thisHigh Court as u,ell as many other High Courts alreadv held to bebadI l. It appears that because of the aforesaid liberry that this HighCourt had [granted permitting ]the Revenue for initiating freshproceedings as a one-time measure in a faceless manner, theIncome [Tax ][Depaftment ]wants to take advantage of the same byprotracting these proceedings which would enable them to meet thelimitation [that ][would ]otherwise come in the way. Likewise, if thewrit petition is kept pending for a considerable long period of timeand finally at a later stage if the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmsthe decision taken by this High Court as also by the other HighCourts in which the SLPs are still pending, the Income Tax ,\n Department would [get ]the advantage [of the tiberty that ][is otherwise]in favour of the Revenue for [initiation ][of ][fresh]protected proceedings from the disposal ofthese [matters at ][a ][much ][later ][stage]which would be advantageous and beneficial [to ][the ][Revenue ][and]would be equally disadvantageous and [detrimcntal ][so ][far ][as ][interest]of the assesses are concemed. [As ][a ][consequence, ][the Income Tax]Department 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 sel in Kanoktla [Rovindra ][Reddy ][(l ][supra), is ][a]matter of grave concern. The [Income ][Tax ][Department's persistent]initiation of fresh proceedings, [disregarding ][the established ][judicial]pronouncements, has led to an unprecedented [surge ][in ][litigation]with 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. ][The]Department's strategy of awaiting [the ][Suprerne ][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]I 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 interests. 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 interests. 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-A and 148 should not have been issued in afaceless manner, at least till the Hon'ble Supreme Coun decide thetwelve hundred (1200) odd SLps which it is already seized of or, atleast the lncome Tax Department should have found out someremedial steps to ensure that wherever the authorities intend toinitiate proceedings under Sections 148-A and 148, other than in afaceless manher, 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 l{on'ble Supreme Court on the very same issue.This again, the Income Tax Department, has not been able to give aconvincing reply, except for the fact that such a decision if at all has to be taken, has to be taken [for ][the whole ][of ][India, ][and ][which]otherwise has to be by [way ][of ][a ][policy ][decision ][and that ][too ][at ][the]level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. [Though ][the ][leamed]Standing Counsel for the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][contended ][that]the Delhi High Court dismissed [a ][writ ][petition ][of similar ][nature, ][on]the one hand when the High [Court ][is ][struggling ][to ][reduce ][its]pendency, such notices which are under [challenge ][in ][this ][writ]petition are forcing the assessee to [knock the ][doors ][of ][this ][High]Court resulting in filing [of ][hundreds ][of ][new ][writ ][petitions ][which ][in]the long run not only affects [the ][disposal ][of ][the ][writ ][petitions but]also consumes substantial time of [the ][Bench ][in ][hearing ][these]matters again and again on daily [basis' ][Admittedly, in ][spite ][of ][the]matter before the Hon'ble Supreme [Court ][having ][been taken ][on]many occasions, the Hon'ble [Supreme ][Court which ][is ][seized ][of ][the]matter has been reluctant in [granting any ][interim ][protection ][to ][the]Income Tax Department. [Yet, the ][authorities ][concemed ][at ][the]State level are not [ready ][to ][accept ][the verdict ][passed ][by ][a ][maj ][ority]of High Courts of different States [on ][the ][same ][issue; ][and ][to ][make]\ )things further wor'se, the [Income ][Tax ][Department ][is ][showing]audacity by issuing notices continuously [under Sections ][148-A ][and] 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer [whereas ][it ][ought]to have been onlv in the faceless manner. 14. ln the case of BANK OF INDIA VS. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an [issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notlotlowing an order passed by the adjudicating [authority ][only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are pending, the Division [Bench ]of [the]High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as [under, ][viz., ][:] 148 through the [jurisdictional ]Assessing Officer [whereas ][it ][ought]to have been onlv in the faceless manner. 14. ln the case of BANK OF INDIA VS. COMMISSIONER, INCOME TAXrr, on an [issue ][whether ][it ][was]justifiable on the part of the Income Tax Department in notlotlowing an order passed by the adjudicating [authority ][only ][on ][the]ground that the appeals are pending, the Division [Bench ]of [the]High Court of Bombay held at paragraph No.25 as [under, ][viz., ][:] "25 filr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attention to [the]decision of this Court 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. ][ITO'3]of which one of us [(Justice ]G.S. [Kulkarni) was ][a ][member, wherein]the Court categorically observed that the Revenue [having ][not]"accepted" the ludgment of the High Court would not mean that tillthe same is set aside in a manner [known ]to [law, ][it ][would loose ][its]bindang force. Referring to the decision of the [Supreme ][Court ][in]Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation [Ltd.r4, the]Court observed that the approach of the officials [of ][Revenue of]treating decisions being ["not ]acceptable" was criticized [by ][the]Supreme Court. ln such decision, [following ][are the ][relevant]observations made by the Supreme [Court,] ./ ./' 11202s [) ] [70 ][laxmann.com ][422 ][( ][Bombay)l /]'' 119281 [t3 ][It'R ][589 ][(Bombay)]" TZOZ+1 [[65 taxmann.com ][581/300 ][Taxman ][452 ][(Bombay)]t'ltggzl taxnrann.com l6155 ELT 433 (SC) ,, a._ I I "6. Sri Reddyis perhaps right [in ][saying]that theofficers werenot actuated [bY ][anY ][mala]fides inpassing theimpugned orders. [TheY]perhapsgenuinely felt that the [claim ][of the ][assessee ][was ][not]tenable and that, [if ][it ][was ][accepted, ][the. ]['Revenue]would suffer. [But ][what Sri ][Reddy overlooks ][is ][that we]are not concerned [here ][with ][the ][correctness ][or]otherwise of [their ][conclusion ][or ][of ][any ][factual]malafides but [with the fact that ][the ][officers, in reaching]in their conclusion, [by-passed ][two ][appellate orders ][in]regard to the [same issue which ][were ][placed ][before]them, one of [the Collector ][(Appeals) and ][the ][other ][of]the Tribunal. The [High ][Court ][has, ][in ][our view' ][rightly]criticized this [conduct of the Assistant ][Collectors ][and]the harassment [lo ][the ][assessee 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 emphasized ][that ][it ][is ][of]utmost importance [that, ][in ][disposing ][of ][the]quasijudicial issues [before ][them, ][revenue officers are]bound by the [decisions ][of ][the ][appellate ][authorities']The order of the [Appellte Collector ][is ][binding on ][the]Assistant Collectors [working ][within ][his ][jurisdiction ][and]the order [of ][the Tribunal ][is binding upon the Assistant]Collectors and [the ][Appellate Collectors who ][function]under the [jurisdiction of the ][Tribunal ][The principles ][of]judicial discipline requare [that ][the ][orders of ][the ][higher]authorities [should be followed ][unreservedly]appellate by the subordinate [authorities ][The mere fact that the]order of the [appellate authority ][is ][not ]["acceptable" ][to]the department - [in ][itself ][an ][objectionable phrase ][-]and is the subject [matter ][of ][an ][appeal can ][fumish ][no]ground for not following [it ][unless ][its ][operation ][has]been suspended [by ][a ][competent ][court ][lf ][this ][healthy] rule is not followed, the result will only be undueharassment to assesses and chaos in administrationof tax laws. 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 the observationsmade by the High Court, have been harsh on theofficers. lt is clear that the observations of the HighCourt, seemingly vehement, and apparentlyunpalatable 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 Revenue. 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 theappellate authorities to the requirements of judicialdiscipline and the need for giving effect to the ordersof the higher appellate authorities which are bindingon thern." 15. What is woffying this Bench more is the fact that anendeavour is being made whole heartedly to ensure nor to generateIurther titigation on issues which have been laid to rest by a largenumber ol ttigh Courts all of whom have taken a consistent standthat the action ol-the Income Tax Department being violative of the .i Finance Ac|,2020 and [Finance ][Act, ][2021 ][- ][Now, ][in ][order ][to ][protect]the interest of the Revenue [as ][also ][that ][of ][the ][assessee' ][it ][would ][be]trite at this [juncture, ]if [we ][dispose ][of ][the ][writ ][petition ][with ][an]observation / direction [that the ][disposal ][of ][the ][instant ][writ ][petition]in terms of the [judgment ]rendered [by this ][High ][Court ][in ][the ][case ][of]Kankanala Ravindra Reddy [(l ][supra) ][shall however ][be subject ][to]the outcome of the SLPs [which were ][filed by ][the ][Income ][Tax]Department and which is [pending consideration before ][the ][Hon'ble]Supreme Court. 16. tn 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]Court would further be burdened [which ][otherwise ][can be decided]and disposed ofas [a ]covered [matter.] 17 . So far as the interest of [the ][Revenue ][is ][concemed, ][we ][are ][of]the considered opinion [that ][the ][interest ][of ][the ][Revenue has ][already]been considered and [protected, ][as ][has been ][observed ][in ][paragraphs] I I I 36, 37 and 18 o1' the order which, for ready reference, is reproducedhereunder 36 For all the aforesaid reasons, lhe 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, lhe consequential orders 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 the principlesthat when the initiation 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 petitions stands allowed onthis very Jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofJurrscjrction. [we ][are not ][inclined ][to ][proceed further ][and]decide 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 petitions stands allowed onthis very Jurisdictional issue. Since the impugned noticesand orders are getting quashed on the point ofJurrscjrction. [we ][are not ][inclined ][to ][proceed further ][and]decide 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-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 the procedural flaw, the right .l conferred on the Revenue would remain [reserved ][to]proceed further if they so want from the stage of theorder of the Supreme Court in the case of [Ashish]Agarwal, supra. 18. We would only further like to make observations [that ][since]we are inclined to dispose of the instant writ petition, conscious ofthe fact that the earlier order of this High Court in [the ][case ][of]Kanakala Ravindra Reddy (I supra) is subjected to [challenge]before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.3574 of [2024,]preferred by the Income Tax Department, we make it clear thatallowing of the instant writ petition is subject to [outcome ][of ][the]aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the [decision ][of this]High Court in the case of Ksnakala Ravindra Reddy [(1 ][supra).]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 SupremeCourt in the pending SLP on the very same [issue.] 19. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands [allowed ][in] favour of the assessee so far as the [issue ]of [jurisdiction]1Sconcerred. As a consequence, the impugned notice [under]challenge under Sections 148-4 and 148 stands set [aside/quashed.] 1'.i'[, 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]There [shall be ][no ][order ][as]Kankanala [Ruvindra Reddy ][(l ][supra)'] tO COSTS Consequently, [miscellaneous ][petitions pending' ][if ][any' ][shall] stand [closed] 3?i;,hiE3't+RlRSiECTION //TRUE ). [Room ][No ][5'14' 5th]To,1The [DePutY ][Com][ missioner of ]ydera[I][ncome ]bad, [Telan][Tax, Circle]oana.A Block' [lncome]Seventh [Floor']Floor, [Sig][natures Tower, ][H]f lnco[me ][Tax ][ll']2. The [Chief]Com[missioner ][o]erabadTax [Towe][ rs, AC]Guards, [M][asab Tank ][HYd]of Finance' [Government of ][lndia']eThe Secretary.The Union[oi ][lndia, Ministry]North [Block,]New Delhiana4. The [Chief ][Co][mm ][issione][r ][of lnco][me ][Tax-ll,][ Se][venth ][Floor,][ A ]overnme[Block, lncome]nt of [lndia,]Tax [Towers, ][A][C Guards, Masab Tank ][HYd][eta][bad ][500004][ , ][Telang]5. [The SecretarY,][ The Unio][n ][of ][lndia. Ministry][ of Finance, ][G]Nort[hB][lock. New][ Delhi ][1][ 10 ][101]678OneOneOne[Cc ]CC CC [to ]to to [Sri][Sri][sri][ b]Bokaro Gadi NarendPravee[SaP][ra ]na n [ChettY,]Kumar'ReddY[ Ad][(Jr. SC]DePutY[vocate ]for lncomeSolicitor [G][eneral of lndia]Tax) [[oPUcl][loPUCl]ITwo [CoPies]TJKVW ..i : HIGH COURT DATED:2410412025 ORDER WP.No.33806 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS fM (. Y\ES1Ar€cJ2 I [tiiAl ][?0tE]C.+{i,'!fii6ar.