Radha Krishan Industries V. Union of India and others

CWP/19007/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Radha Krishan Industries, the petitioner, challenging an impugned notice under Section 148 dated 25.04.2024, and a transfer order under Section 127 dated 28.02.2025, both related to the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner sought to quash these orders, claiming they were illegal and without jurisdiction. The matter of the notice's legality is currently under consideration by the Supreme Court in a connected case involving Dr. Reddy Laboratories. Given the overlap and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the High Court decided to stay the proceedings and await the Supreme Court's judgment, which will be binding on this case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 815659 (HC-HIMACHAL_PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2025
• 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: BHARAT BHUSHAN; NEERAJ SHARMA; ISHAN KASHYAP
• Assessee Lawyers: KUMAIL ABBAS; GOVERDHAN SHARMA
• Keywords: Certiorari; Certiorari; Income Tax; Judicial discipline; Notice; Stay proceedings; Transfer order
• Section: 148; 151; 127

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 19007 of 2025 Date of Decision: 02.12.2025 __________________________________________________ Radha Krishan Industries ...Petitioner… Versus Union of India & 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. Kumail Abbas, Advocate (through video conference) and Mr. Goverdhan Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No.1. Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Advocates, for respondents No. 2 and 3. _________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur , Judge (oral) Issue notice. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate waives service and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:- “(i) 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 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-1) 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. (ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned transfer order dated 28.02.2025 passed under Section 127 of the Act by respondent No.3, purporting to transfer the Petitioner’s 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Printed from counselvise.com 2 case from Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.4, as the said order is legally unsustainable, incapable of conferring (non-existing) jurisdiction, and stands vitiated due to the invalidity of the foundational notice under Section 148 of the Act.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at this stage, petitioner would not be pressing second prayer in the petition with submissions that the said prayer shall be governed by the consequential impact of the order being passed here-in-after and also with liberty to agitate the same, if anything still survives to be adjudicated, by filing a separate petition/ appeal as per recourse available in law. 4. The subject matter of the challenge contained in prayer (i) of this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 25.04.2024 (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 25.04.2024 (Annexure P-1), as assailed in this petition. We direct that the present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed Printed from counselvise.com 3 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 02, 2025 (Nisha) Printed from counselvise.com "