Paradise Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. V. The income Tax Officer & others

CWP/19148/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Paradise Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The notice, dated March 28, 2025, was contested on grounds of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice, as the petitioner argued that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was not competent to issue the notice. The matter was already under consideration by the Supreme Court in a connected case, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd. Consequently, the High Court decided to stay the proceedings and await the Supreme Court's decision, which would be binding on this case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824232 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NEERAJ SHARMA; ISHAN KASHYAP; BHARAT BHUSHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ROCHAK SINGLA; SURJEET KUMAR; SUPARNA JAIN
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 19148 of 2025 Date of Decision: 17.12.2025 __________________________________________________ TParadise Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner… Versus The income Tax Officer & others …..Respondents... Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Rochak Singla, Mr. Surjeet Kumar and Ms. Suparna Jain, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Advocates for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.4. _________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur , Judge (oral) Notice. 2. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Senior Panel Counsel, appear, waive and accept service of notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 3 and respondent No. 4, respectively. 3. The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief(s): - “i. Issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, direction or command for quashing the impugned the Notice dated March 28, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Printed from counselvise.com 2 2025 u/s 148 (P-1) Page No: 68 for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22, being without jurisdiction and issued in contravention of the provisions of the Income Tax Act and violative of the principles of natural justice as the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is not competent to issue notice under Section 148 and the notice issued is in contravention to the provisions of Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 thus the notice and the subsequent proceedings being completely illegal and void ab initio in the eyes of law. ii. To STAY the assessment proceedings for AY 2021-22 by staying the operation of notice dated March 28, 2025 (P-1) under Section 148 of the Act during the pendency of the present writ petition.” 4. Admittedly, the subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-1) 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. 5. 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 28.03.2025 (Annexure P- 1), as assailed in this petition. We direct that the present Printed from counselvise.com 3 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. 6. 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. 7. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge ( Romesh Verma) Judge December 17, 2025 (Nisha) Printed from counselvise.com "