Santosh Kumari V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & others

WP/6082/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Santosh Kumari, the petitioner, challenging a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the notice, claiming it was illegal and without jurisdiction, based on improper sanction under Section 151 of the Act. However, the High Court noted that the issue was already under consideration by the Supreme Court in a connected matter involving Dr. Reddy Laboratories. Consequently, the High Court decided to stay the proceedings to avoid multiplicity of litigation and awaited the Supreme Court's decision, which would be applicable to this case as well.

• Counselvise Citation: [] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822211 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2025
• 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
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA SOOD
• Keywords: Approval; Certiorari; Certiorari; Income Tax; Jurisdiction; Notice; Sanction
• Section: 148; 151

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 19547 of 2025 Date of Decision: 12.12.2025 __________________________________________________ Santosh Kumari ...Petitioner… Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & 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. Aditya Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Sharma & Mr. Ishan Kashyap, Advocates. _________________________________________________________ Vivek Singh Thakur , Judge (oral) The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief:- (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 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. 2. 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 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Printed from counselvise.com 2 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 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. 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 December 12, 2025 (Nisha) Printed from counselvise.com "