1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 574 of 2025 Date of decision: 17 .9 . 2025 M/s Omdev Plastic Pvt. Ltd ...Petitioner. Versus Union of India 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. Goverdhan Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr.V.B. Verma and Mr Rajinder Thakur, CGCs for respondent No.1. Mr.Neeraj Sharma and Mr.Ishan Kahsyap, Advocates, for respondents-Income Tax Department. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) 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 for quashing of Notice dated 27.3.2024 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 148A(b), subsequent order under Section 148A(d) dated 8.4.2024 (Annexure P-3) and notice under Section 148 dated 8.4.2024 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.2 being illegal and without jurisdiction as after the introduction of Notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-8), the proceedings under Section 148 could have only been 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 initiated by respondent No.4 and also for the reason that the proceedings in question have been initiated in contravention to the provisions of Section148A and are based upon presumptions and conjectures without considering the documents on the record. 2. The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 08.04.2024 (Annexure P-4) 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 8.4.2024 (Annexure P-4), 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)