1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 4228 of 2025 Date of decision: 17 .9 . 2025 Jasmeet Kaur Rajpal ...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. Ms. Heena Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr Balram Sharma, DSGI, Mr.Rajinder Thakur and Mr. V.B. Verma, CGCs for Union of India. Mr.Neeraj Sharma and Mr.Ishan Kashyap, Advocates, for respondent-Income Tax Department. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:- (ii) And for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the notice dated 20.3.2024 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2020-21 by the ITO, Parwanoo, respondent No.3, herein and consequential proceedings being wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2. The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 20.3.2024 (Annexure P-1) 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 20.3.2024 (Annexure P-1), 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. 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)