1 ( 2025:HHC:15411 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No.495 of 2024 Decided on: 22.05.2025 M/s Preethi Himachal & Co. ...…..Petitioner Versus Union of India 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. Aman Pratap Singh, Advocate (through V.C). and Mr. Govedrdhan Lal Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. Ishaan Kashyap, Advocates, for respondents No. 2 to 4. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral ) The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive reliefs:- “i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order and the accompanying demand notice dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) and penalty notices dated 29.12.2023 (Annexures P-2 and P-3) issued by the respondent No.2 and impugned order dated 18.03.2020 (Annexure P-5). 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?No 2 ( 2025:HHC:15411 ) (ii) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction that the proceedings in pursuance of the impugned order and notices will be stayed fully and no action shall be taken against the petitioner till the time the matter is pending before this Hon’ble Court.” 2 The petitioner has unnecessarily been dragged into yet another round of litigation despite specific orders passed by this court on 16.11.2021 in CWP No.3538 of 2021, titled M/s Preethi Himachal & Co. versus Union of India and others, directing the respondents to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, by virtual mode, before passing fresh orders of assessment. 3 It is not in dispute that such request was indeed made by the petitioner as is evident from the reply dated 23.12.2023 (Annexure P-20), yet the respondents without affording any opportunity of personal hearing, have proceeded to pass the impugned demand notice dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) and thereafter, issued penalty notices of the same date i.e. 29.12.2023 (Annexures P-2 & P-3). 4 Merely because the respondents do not have to personally incur the expenses towards litigation does not mean that they indulge in compulsory litigation and that too in a cantankerous manner. Such attitude on the part of the respondents has unnecessarily resulted in clogging and chocking the judicial system where time spent on this litigation could have been well utilized in deciding more meaningful cases. 3 ( 2025:HHC:15411 ) 5 The respondents are directed to be careful in future and not to indulge in such mindless litigation or else this court shall be compelled to not only order the disciplinary proceedings against the erring officer(s)/official(s) but also to impose heavy costs. 6 Accordingly, the demand notice dated 29.12.2023 (Annexure P-1) and penalty notices dated 29.12.2023 ( Annexures P2 & P3 are quashed and set- aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.2- National Faceless Assessment Centre for passing fresh orders of assessment by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before finalizing the order of assessment. 7 The Assessing Authority is directed to finalize the assessment order as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 31.07.2025. 8 The parties are directed to appear before respondent No.2 on 29.05.2025. 9 The instant petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Sushil Kukreja) Judge 22th May, 2025. (yogesh/pankaj)