( 2025:HHC:29907 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 14236 of 2025 Decided on: 03.09.2025 ______________________________________________________________ Prem Chand Katna ....Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer & Ors. …Respondents _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur,  Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner       : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aditya Sood, Advocate. For the respondents    : Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. Ishaan kashyap, Advocates. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral) 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:­ “(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 issued under Section 148 dated 29.03.2025   (Annexure   P­2),   being   illegal,   without jurisdiction, against the procedure and further based 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2025:HHC:29907 ) 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 challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P­2) is already under consideration before the Apex Court 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. 4. Since   the   issue   involved   in   this   petition   is already   pending   consideration   before   the   Apex   Court, therefore, keeping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain ourselves from giving our opinion with respect to impugned notice under Section 148, dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P­ 2), as assailed in this petition. We direct that the present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Apex 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 ( 2025:HHC:29907 ) before the Apex 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 Apex Court. Ordered accordingly. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. ( Vivek Singh Thakur ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) September 03, 2025 Judge (raman)