1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 3094 of 2025 Date of decision: 17 .9 . 2025 Jasbir Singh ...Petitioner. Versus Income Tax Officer 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. Sahil Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr.Neeraj Sharma and Mr.Ishan Kashyap, Advocates, for respondents-Income Tax Department. Mr. Balram Sharma, DSGI with Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Senior Panel Counsel, Mr.Rajinder Thakur, Mr. V.B. Verma, CGCs for Union of India. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:- (i) Issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the notice dated 31.3.2023 (Annexure P-4) issued by respondent No.1, order under Section 147 of the Act dated 28.3.2024 (Annexure P-14), Demand notice issued under Section 156 dated 28.3.2024 (Annexure P-15), notice under Section 271 AAC(1) of the Act dated 28.3.2024 (Annexure P-16), show cause notice under Section 271 ACC(1) of the Act dated 3.5.2024 (Annexure P-17), outstanding arrear demand notice 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 (Annexure P-20) issued by respondent No.1 being devoid of jurisdiction. 2. The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 31.3.2023 (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 31.3.2023 (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)