2025:HHC:30593 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 14455 of 2025 Date of decision: 08.09.2025 Vineet Sharma …Petitioner Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Shimla & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Kartik Bansal, Advocate (Through VC) with Mr. Aman Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. Ishaan Kashyap, Advocates, for respondents No. 1and 2. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No. 3. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) Notice. Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. Ishaan Kashyap, Advocates and Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, learned Central Government Counsel, appear, waive and accept service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 2. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:- “(i) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for AY 2022-23 dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No. 1 and the consequential re- 2 2025:HHC:30593 assessment proceedings for the subject Assessment Year initiated being devoid of jurisdiction; (ii) To stay the operation of the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2025 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No. 1, during the pendency of the Civil Writ Petition; 3. The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 29.03.2025 (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 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 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 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 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 3 2025:HHC:30593 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. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) 8th September 2025 Judge (sanjeev)