( 2025:HHC:19234 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.9995 of 2025 Decided on: 21st June, 2025 Prem Lal Barpa .......Petitioner versus Income Tax Officer and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ashwani K. Lal and Mr.Praveen Sharma, Advocates. For the respondents: Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr.Ishan Kashyap, Advocates. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) Issue notice. Mr. Neeraj Sharma, learned counsel appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the 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 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) being illegal, without jurisdiction, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:19234 ) 2 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.” 3. The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) is already under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (c) Diary No. 17041/2024., case titled Union of India & Ors. Vs. Association of Technical Textiles Manufacturers and Processors & Anr. 4. 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 26.03.2025 (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. 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 ( 2025:HHC:19234 ) 3 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. 6. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge June 21, 2025 ( Sushil Kukreja ) (naveen) Judge