Paradise Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. V. The Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo & Ors.

CWP/18840/2025

AI Insights

Paradise Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. filed a writ petition challenging a notice issued by the Income Tax Officer under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2022-23. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without jurisdiction and violated the principles of natural justice, as the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer was not competent to issue such a notice. The matter was complicated by the fact that a similar issue was already under consideration by the Supreme Court in a connected case involving Dr. Reddy Laboratories. Given the circumstances, 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) 825834 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2025
• 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: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NEERAJ SHARMA; ISHAN KASHYAP; BHARAT BHUSHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: ROCHAK SINGLA; SURJEET KUMAR
• Keywords: Assessment Year; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Natural Justice; Writ of Certiorari
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"2025:HHC:43898 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.18840 of 2025 Date of decision: 16.12.2025 Paradise Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner. Versus The Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo & Ors. …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, Advocate (through VC) and Mr. Surjeet Kumar, Advocate. 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) 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, 2025 u/s 148 (P-1) Page No: 68 for Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23, 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 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes Printed from counselvise.com -2- 2025:HHC:43898 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 2022- 23 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.” 2. 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. 3. 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 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. Printed from counselvise.com -3- 2025:HHC:43898 4. 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. 5. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Romesh Verma) Judge. 16th December, 2025 (Pardeep) Printed from counselvise.com "