Disposed

Vinod Kumar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Palampur and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC21 Sept 2026CWP/5204/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to decide the challenge to a notice under Section 148 because the same issue was already pending before the Supreme Court in connected matters. It directed that its order be governed by the Supreme Court’s decision and stayed proceedings before the competent authority until the issue was finally decided, thereby disposing of the petition and pending applications.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vinod Kumar Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-Palampur and Ors. — Income Tax | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 5204 of 2024

¶4

Date of decision: 17.9. 2025

¶5

Vinod Kumar.

¶6

...Petitioner.

¶7

Versus …Respondents.

¶8

Income Tax Officer and others.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶12

For the Petitioner. Mr. Praveen Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr.Neeraj Sharma and Mr.Ishan Kahsyap, Advocates, for respondents.

¶13

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)

¶14

The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following

¶15

substantive relief:-

¶16

“(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 order passed under Section 148A(d) (Annexure P-3) and notice under Section 148 dated 29.2.2024 (Annexure P-4) 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.”

¶17

The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby

¶18

the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148,

¶19

dated 29.2.2024 (Annexure P-4) is already under consideration before the

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (c) No. 17040/2024, titled as The

¶23

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd. with connected matters.

¶24

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 29.2.2024 (Annexure P-4), 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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

¶27

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

¶28

(Sushil Kukreja), Judge.

¶29

17^th September, 2025 (MS)

Vinod Kumar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Palampur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vinod Kumar v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Palampur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases