Disposed¶18

Prabhat Singh v. the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Dec 2025CWP/19859/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 148 notice dated 31.03.2025; Section 151 sanction/approval; Income Tax Act, 1961; writ of certiorari; judicial discipline; issue pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court; SLP (C) No. 17040/2024 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd.; petition governed by and bound by Supreme Court judgment; stay of proceedings before competent authority; multiplicity of litigation; Himachal Pradesh High Court Shimla; CWP 19859/2025; disposed 16.12.2025; Vivek Singh Thakur J.; Romesh Verma J.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings before the competent authority stayed till final decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court; the petition, along with pending application(s), if any, disposed of in the above terms, to be governed by and bound by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. ¶18

Prabhat Singh Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income… — Income Tax | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), based on sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is legal, valid, proper and within jurisdiction.

¶15

Court's answer

Since the issue involved in the petition is already pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court, keeping in view judicial discipline, refrains from giving its opinion on the impugned Section 148 notice dated 31.03.2025 (Annexure P-2).

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the pending matter, and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court shall be binding on this case also.

¶16

Key takeaways

Because continuation of proceedings before the competent authority during the pendency of the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court would lead to multiplicity of litigation, such proceedings are stayed till the time the issue is finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh (Vivek Singh Thakur and Romesh Verma, JJ.; oral judgment by Vivek Singh Thakur, J.), CWP No. 19859/2025, decided 16.12.2025: A writ petition under certiorari challenged a notice under Section 148 dated 31.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) said to rest on sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Observing that the legality, validity and propriety of such Section 148 notices is already under consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 17040/2024 (The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd., with connected matters), the Court, in judicial discipline, refrained from expressing any opinion on the impugned notice, directed that the petition be governed by the Supreme Court's judgment and that its decision be binding on the case, and stayed further proceedings before the competent authority till final decision by the Supreme Court to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Petition and pending application(s) disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2025:HHC:4398 0

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 19859/2025 Decided on: 16.12.2025

¶4

Prabhat Singh …..Petitioner Versus

¶5

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. ….Respondents

¶6

Coram:

¶7

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

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Sharma & Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Advocates.

¶10

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)

¶11

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:-

¶12

“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 under Section 148 dated 31.03.2025, Annexure P-2, being illegal, without jurisdiction, against the procedure and further based on the illegal sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/ actions consequent thereto.”

¶13

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

¶14

¶15

The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 31.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) is already under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 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 .

¶16

Since the issue involved in this petition is already pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain ourselves from giving our opinion with respect to impugned notice under Section 148, dated 31.03.2025 (Annexure P-2), as assailed in this petition. We direct that the present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the decision thereto, shall be binding on this case also.

¶17

The continuity of proceedings before the competent authority, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ordered accordingly.

¶18