1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7791 of 2024 Date of decision: 17 .9 . 2025 Shree Siddi Vinayak Forging Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner. Versus Income Tax Officer and others. …Respondents. Corum Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner. Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Neeraj Sharma and Mr.Ishan Kashyap, Advocates, for respondents No.1to 4. Mr. Balram Sharma DSGI with Mr.V.B. Verma and Mr.Rajinder Thakur, CGCs for Union of India. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:- (i) Issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing notice under Section 148(A(b) dated 26.3.2024 (Annexure P-3), order under Section 148A(d) dated 15.4.2024 (Annexure P-6) and notice under Section 148 dated 15.4.2024 (Annexure P-7) of the Act being devoid of jurisdiction. (ii) To stay the re-assessment proceedings for assessment year 2017-18 by stayng the operation of notice under Section 148 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 dated 15.4.2024 (Annexure P-7) of the Act issued by respondent No.1 during 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 15.4.2024 (Annexure P-7) 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 15.4.2024 (Annexure P-7), 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. 5. 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. 3 6. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. (Sushil Kukreja), Judge. 17th September, 2025 (MS)