Prem Chand Katna Vs the Income Tax Officer and Others — Income Tax | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

Prem Chand Katna Vs the Income Tax Officer and Others — Income Tax | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Stay of proceedings before the competent authority till the issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court; petition to be governed by the Apex Court's judgment, which shall be binding on this case; pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice issued under Section 148 dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), based on sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is illegal, without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed along with all consequential proceedings/actions. +1 more

Court's answer

In deference to judicial discipline, the Court refrained from giving any opinion on the legality of the impugned Section 148 notice dated 29.03.2025 because the identical issue is pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

Ratio / Principle

The present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 17040/2024 and the decision therein shall be binding on this case.

Key takeaways

Continuity of proceedings before the competent authority during the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court would lead to multiplicity of litigation; such proceedings were stayed till the issue is finally decided by the Supreme Court.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Income Tax – Notice under Section 148 dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) founded on sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 – Identical issue already pending before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 17040/2024 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd., with connected matters) – Held, applying judicial discipline, the High Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the validity of the notice; petition directed to be governed by the Supreme Court's judgment, which shall be binding on the case; continuity of proceedings before the competent authority during pendency held bound to lead to multiplicity of litigation, and such proceedings stayed till final decision by the Supreme Court – Petition disposed of accordingly, along with pending application(s), if any.

( 2025:HHC:29906 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 14241 of 2025 Decided on: 03.09.2025 ______________________________________________________________ Prem Chand Katna ....Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer & Ors. …Respondents _ Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the petitioner :	Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Sood, Advocate.
For the respondents :	Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. Ishaan kashyap, Advocates.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)

Notice. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate, waives

service and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

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 the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby quashing/setting aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148 dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P2), being illegal, without jurisdiction, against the procedure and further based

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

( 2025:HHC:29906 )

on the illegal sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/actions consequent thereto.”

The subject matter of challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P2) is already under consideration before the Apex Court in SLP (c) No.17040/2024 , titled as The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd. with connected matters.

Since the issue involved in this petition is already pending consideration before the Apex Court, therefore, keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain ourselves from giving our opinion with respect to impugned notice under Section 148, dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P 2), as assailed in this petition. We direct that the present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Apex Court and the decision thereto, shall be binding on this case also.

The continuity of proceedings before the competent authority, in view of the pendency of the matter

( 2025:HHC:29906 )

before the Apex Court is bound to lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to stay such proceedings till the time issue is finally decided by the Apex Court. Ordered accordingly.

The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also pending application(s), if any.

( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge

( Sushil Kukreja ) September 03, 2025 Judge (raman)