The Himachal Pradesh High Court affirmed that when the legality of an Income Tax notice under Section 148—based on similar facts and legal issues—is already under the Supreme Court’s consideration, High Courts should refrain from giving any opinion and direct that their cases will be governed by the Supreme Court’s eventual outcome. This approach maintains judicial discipline, prevents inconsistent decisions, and avoids multiplicity of litigation. The ruling clarifies the binding precedential value of future Supreme Court judgments for pending petitions on the same issue.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/2909/2025 of ABHISHEK NEGI Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS CNR HPHC010081972025 |
| Date of Registration | 01-03-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROMESH VERMA |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive for similar matters until resolved by the Supreme Court; subject to the binding effect of the Supreme Court’s final judgment. |
| Type of Law | Income Tax Law / Judicial Procedure / Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court should decide the validity of a Section 148 notice when an identical legal issue and factual situation is already pending before the Supreme Court. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that, where the legality and validity of Section 148 notices is sub judice before the Supreme Court on the same legal issue, High Courts must refrain from deciding the issue to prevent inconsistent decisions and judicial chaos. Instead, pending petitions on the same issue shall be governed by the Supreme Court’s final decision. Proceedings before authorities below are to be stayed to avoid multiplicity of litigation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought quashing of a Section 148 notice dated 20.03.2024 on grounds of illegality and defective sanction. The legal propriety of such notices is currently seized by the Supreme Court in SLP (c) No. 17040/2024 (Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd. & connected matters), hence High Court refrained from adjudication. Proceedings below were stayed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities in Himachal Pradesh for similarly placed Section 148 Income Tax proceedings, subject to the Supreme Court’s final judgment. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts facing identical Section 148 notice challenges while the Supreme Court is seized of the issue. |
| Follows | Judicial discipline and established practice of deferring adjudication when Supreme Court is seized of identical issues (referenced but not named as specific precedents). |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Courts are to refrain from adjudicating upon Income Tax Section 148 notice challenges when the Supreme Court is already seized of an identical legal issue.
- All related proceedings before the authority below are to be stayed until the Supreme Court’s final decision.
- The outcome of the Supreme Court’s judgment will be binding on all such pending petitions.
- Lawyers should avoid forum shopping or parallel proceedings in similar matters.
- Such petitions will be disposed of with directions for future governance by the Supreme Court’s outcome, streamlining litigation and judicial time.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court noted that the legality, validity, and propriety of the impugned notice under Section 148 was already under consideration before the Supreme Court in SLP (c) No. 17040/2024 (Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd. & connected matters).
- Observing principles of judicial discipline, and to avoid conflicting or inconsistent decisions, the Court declined to offer any opinion on the merits of the impugned notice.
- The Court directed that the present petition would be governed by the outcome of the Supreme Court judgment.
- Recognising the risk of multiplicity of litigation and possible contradictory orders, the High Court stayed proceedings before the competent income tax authority until the Supreme Court decides the issue.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of the Section 148 notice dated 20.03.2024, alleging it was illegal, without jurisdiction, and based on defective sanction under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act.
Respondents
- No specific arguments by respondents are detailed in the judgment text provided.
Factual Background
The petitioner was served with a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, dated 20.03.2024, which was challenged as illegal and lacking valid sanction under Section 151. The Supreme Court is presently seized of the identical legal question regarding the validity of such Section 148 notices in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd. & connected matters. In view of this, the High Court refrained from adjudication.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referenced Section 148 (reassessment notice) and Section 151 (sanction for issue of notice) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
- No substantive statutory interpretation was undertaken, as the court deferred adjudication in light of the pending Supreme Court matter.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded; the order was unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
- Establishes that High Courts can summarily dispose of petitions by directing such matters be governed by the outcome of a pending Supreme Court case involving the same legal issue and factual scenario.
- Orders stay of proceedings before lower authorities to prevent procedural entanglement or inconsistent orders.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judicial discipline observed by deferring to the Supreme Court.
- 📅 Time-Sensitive – Stay granted on continuance of proceedings until the Supreme Court renders its verdict.