Rocky Red Sandal Exports Pvt. Ltd v. Union of lndia

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.18729 of 2025 ORDEIT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Norsing Rao Nandileonda) Heard Mr.Sheetal Srikanth, leamed counsel for the pctitioner and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned Senior Standing Cor.rnsel lor the Income Tax Department appearing for the lespondenls. Perused the record.

2. l'his is a writ petition where the proceedings are either challenged to the notices which were issued under Section l48A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') or the assessment orders those have been passed under Section 147 of Lhe Act which have been assailed.

3. This writ petition is being taken up today only on one of the gr.ounds, that the notices issued under Section 148,4 of the Act and the subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 148 of the. Act^ by^ the jurisdictignal Asselqlng.pfficer, whereas in terms \ol'the arnendment that was brought to the Income Tax Act by way of f-inance Act, 2021 w.e.f., 01.04.2021 onwards, proceedings 2 under Sectior, l18A of the Act as also under Section i48 olthe Act ought to have also been issued and proceeded il a faceless man ner

4. 'l'he contention of the petitioner is that t rc issuc of proceedings being in violation ol the Finance Act. lO2l i.e., the impugncd nor.ices under Sectior.r 148A and Section 1.r8 of the Act not being issued in a faceless r-nanr1er, have already b:.:n dealt wirh and decided b1, this Court in the case of K.\ NI(ANALA RAVINDRA REDDY vs. INCOME-TAX OFFI(IERj deoidcd on 14.09.2021 rvhereby a batch of writ petitions wer: allowed and the proceedings initiated under Section l48A as also r-,nder Section 148 of the Act r.r,ere held to bc bad ivith consequentia eliefs on the ground of it being in violation of the provisions of Secl,ion l51A of tlrc Act read 'r,ith Notification 1812022 dated 29.03.21,12. fhe said judgment passed by this Court has also becu subscqu,r'.tly lollowed in a large nurnber of writ petitions which were allovr,:d on similar terms. 'l(2023) 156 trxnrann.corn 178 (Telangana)l

5. Down the line, we find that the same issue has also been decided against the Revenue by vanous High Courts i.e., by the Bombay High Courl in the case of HEXAWARE 1'ECHNOLOGIES LTD., vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS2, Gauhati High Court in the case of RAM NARAYAN SAH vs. UNION OF INDIA3, Punjab and Haryana High Courl in the case of JATINDER SINGH BANGU vs. UNION OF INDIA4, and Telangana High Court in the case of SRI VENKATARAMANA REDDY PATLOOLA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5 where the issue was in respect of interrrational taxation, Bombay High Court in the case of ABHIN ANTLKUMAR SHAH vs. TNCOME TAX OFFICER, INI'ERNATIONAL TAXATION6 which is again on international taxation and central circle, High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of GOVIND SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERT, Gujarat I{igh Court in the case of MANSUKHBHAI 2 lzoz+1a64 I't'R 430 (Bom) ' 1Q024) 156 taxmann.corn 478 (Gauhati)l ' [(2024) 165 taxmann.com I I 5 (Punjab & Haryana)] \'[2024) 167 taxmann.corn 411 ('l'elangana)] \ZOZ+1 166 raxmann.com 679 (Bombay)l 'L2024) 165 taxmann.corn I l3 (Himachal Pradesh)l 4 DAHYABH^I RADADIYA vs. INCOME, TA}: OFFICER, WARD 3(3)r'5)8, Jharkand High Court in the case of SHYAM SUNDAR S1.W vs. UNION OF INDIAe, Rajasthan I iigh Court in thc case of SIIARDA DEVI CHHAJER vs. JNaOME TAX OFFICER & ANOTHEIT and batch ol writ pet tionsr0 r'vhich stood decidecl on 19.03.2024. Similal views have als,.r been taken by the Division Bench ol Calcutta High Courl irr the case o1- GIRDHAR GOPAL DALMIA vs. UNION OF IN ll)IA & ORS (M.A.T 1690 of 2023), decided on25.09.2024.

6. Even though the same issue having been decirl,:d by a large number of High Courls, we are still confronted with l .r'ge hting of identical rnatters on daily basis ranging bctween : to 10 writ petitions. That upon the instructions being sou1l'Lt lrom the Department, they have been taking a solitary gr-or..nd that the decision of the Bombay High Cour.t in the case c l- Hcxaware Technologies Ltd., (2 supra) as also the one u,h i .;h has been Vecided by tlris Courl in the casc ol Kanakala Rut,rndra Redcly szozq SCc Online Guj 4012 '2025 SCC Or,Linc Jhar 287 'o 12023 t RJ- Jtr :49 8 4 -D B l 5 (l supra) has been subjected to challenge in a Special Leave I)etition i.e., SLP No.3574 o{ 2024 before the Hon'ble Suprerne Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized of the matter In addition, there are about 1200 SLPs also filed arisins out of the same issue being decided by various High Courts. 1 . To a query being put to the lean-red counsel for the Revenue, they have categorically accepted thc fact that there is no interim order granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in any of these matl.ers pending belbre it. Meanwhile, fresh writ petitions of identical nature are being piled up before this Bench on daily basis and the pendency is getting increased on matter which otherwise has already been dealt and decided by this very High Court itself.

8. On the one hand, even though the order of this Court that was passed as early as on 14.09.2023 and more 16 months have lapsed, till date, we do not iind any remedial steps having been taken by the lncome -lax Deparlment to take appropriate steps to either hold back issuance of notice under Section l48A and under Section 148 of the Act by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, rather the authorities concemed in the teeth of series of decisions 6 by all the nrajor High Courts in India are conri ruously still initiating proceedings under Section 148A of the .',.ct and also initiating pr:ceedings under Section t48 of . rc Act in contravention to the amendments brought into tl'rc llt: ,tnc 'I'ax Act pursuant to tl-re Finance Act,2020 as also the Financc.\ct 2021

9. Upon a query being put as to why can't this ri r rt pctition be disposcd ol ir.r tl.re teeth ol tlie decision rendered br' liis Court in thc case of Ktnakila Ravindra Reddy (1 supra), Icar rcd Standing Clounsel lor the lncome'fax Deparlrneut contends thltt lhosc u,ould unnecessalily burden the lncome -fax Departmenl whet e thcy would be requilcd to lile equal number of SLI', bcfore the Hon'ble Sup:'etne Court and it would be fufther r .rrdening tl-re exchequer of the Union of India. It was also thc corLt,:ntion of the learrred Standing Counsel that no pre.judice ivould be .:aused to the intcrcst olthe petitioners in case if this writ pctition ir; kept pendir.rg till the finalization of the SLPs pending before -he Hon'ble Supreme Cor n and the fact thal thc pctitioner is alr:.Ldy enioying the benefit of interim protection. Nonetheless, on th,: :arlier quet y of this Courl as to why the Income Tax Department It've not come out rvith a tnechanism to issue appropriate iustt'ucti t.ts ot' lo take 7 appropriate steps in ensuring that proceedings under Section 148A of the Act as also the assesslnent orders under Section 148 of the Act are kept in a hold in the light of tl.re decisions dedcided by the valious I figh Courls, it was submittcd by the leamed Standing Counsel that the said steps can only be taken at the level of CBDT as any such steps would have to be taken Pan India and cannot be lirnited to any of these jurisdictional I ligh Cour-ts

10. As a result of which, what we arc facing is steep increase of litigation day in and day out even though various orders have been passed by this High Courl allowing wlit petitions on the very same issue. The lncome Tax authorities concemed are still even now in 2025 also initiating proceedings in contravention to the provisions of Section 15lA of the Act and as a result by now, more than 600 to 700 petitions have been alrcady got piled up before this High Court on an issue which otherwise stands squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in thc casc of Kanakalt Ruvindra Reddy (1 supra). What is also surprising is the fact that though while allowing the writ petitions in the case of Kanakalu Ravindra Reddy (l supra), the Division Bench while reserving the right of the Revenue, has also protected the interest of the petitioners 8 insofar as the Iiberty which was granted to the :levenuc for initiating lresli proceedings strictly iu accordance witlL the anrended provisions of the Act, as amended by the Financc rr :t, 2020 and thc Finance Act,2021 . The petitioner assessee u,ottlcl ',e erttitled to challenge or raise the other legal objections if the Rc',rrruc initiates fresl-r proceedings. The Department has made no t't.ideavoLLt 1n availing the said liberly that was reserved lor the Rcr t'rrr-re. On thc contrarlr, thel have been still sticking on to the star tl. u'hich this Iligl-r Coult ar; r'r'ell as many other High Coufts ahe:tr1 hcld to be bad. 1 I . lt appetrs that because of the aforesaid libefty t rat this lJiglr Court had granted perrnitting the Revenlte for ir itiating fiesh proceedings rts a one-titne measurc in a faceless ttartner, the L-rcornc Tax l)cparltnent wants to take advantage o' -he same by protracting th:sc proceedings which would enable tl-rc L t to nleet the limitation tha: would otherr,vise come in the way. L:tr cwise, if tl.re i.vrit petitior-r is kept pending for a cor-rsiderable Iong r,.rriocl of timc and finalll at a later stage if the Hor.r'ble Supreme C< uft confirms the decision ..aken by this High Cour.t as also by th: other High Courts in wlrich the SLPs are still pending, thc t.tcorrc Tax 3Y:?T]'.;.; 9 Department would get the advantage of the liberty that is otherwise protccted ln favour of the Revenue lol initiation of fresh proceedings ti'om the disposal of these lratters at a uruch later stage u,hich would be advantageous and beneficial to the Revenue and would be equally disadvantageous and detrimental so far as interest of the assesses are concerred. As a consequence, the Income Tax Department gets an cxtended period of tirne lor initiation of fresh ploceedings. ll. The alarming trcnd of docket explosion in this Court, despite the clear precedent seL in Konokflla Rayindro Reddy (l supra), is a rnattcr of grave concern. The Income Tax Department's persistent initiation of fiesh proccedings, disregardir.rg the cstablished judicial pronouncements, has led to an unprecedentcd surge in litigation with over 600-700 petitions piling up on the same issue. This dcliberate approach not only undennines the plinciple of judicial procedent but also strains the judicial resources unnecessarily. The Department's strategy of awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on pending SLPs while continuing to initiate lresh proceedings appears to be a calculated move to buy time and circumvent limitation periods, rather than adhering to the established legal 10 position. Su;h conduct raises serious questiors about the administrativr: cfficiency and the respect .jud icia I pronouncclne nts. palticularly rvl-ren this Court has alrr:cl1 pror ide d a balanced approach by prescrving both the Revcttrt,r's righls arrcl asscsses rnter JSts

13. Anothcr aspect u,hich needs to be considercd i; that in lact it should havc t,ccn lealized by thc lncome Tax Dcpartrr -'nt it-sell'and should have lolrnd out via rnedia in ensuring thr 1 proceedirtgs undcr Sections I48-A and 148 should not have bc-'r issur'd in a faccless manrler', at least till the Hon'ble Suprerne ('o rrt dccicle tl're trvclve hundr:d (1200) odd SLPs which it is alreadl ;:izecl of'or'. at lcast the lncoure Tax Department should have lir-rnd out sonre rerncdial ste])s to ensure that wherever the autholit cs inrend to initiate procecdir-rgs undcr Sections 148-A and 148, :rther than in a faccless nlarrncr, tl-re proceedings should have r-,,'cn delcr-red without precipitating the mattcr further intimating tlre assessee tlrat they shall initiate appropriate ploceedings only after lre SL P's arc dccided b1' thc llon'ble Suprerne Couft on the vc SAIIE ISS[IC This again, tlrc lncorne'lax Department, has not beerr rble to give a convincinq r:plv, except for tl-re lact that sucl-r a r[ t ision il at all I 11 has to be taken, has to be taken for the whole of lndia. and which otherwise has to be by way ol a policy decision and that too at the level of Central Board of Direct Taxes. 1'hough the learned Standing Counsel tbr the Incorne Tax Depaltrrent contcnded that the [)elhi High Court disrnissed a writ petition olsimilar rlature, on the one hand when the High Coud is struggling to leduce its pcnder-rcy, such notices which arc under challcnge in this writ l)etition are tbrcing the assessee to knock the doors of this High Courl rcsulting in filing of hundreds of new writ petitions which in the lor-rg run not only affects the disposal of the writ pctitions but also consumes substantial timc of the Bench in hearing thesc nratters again and again on daily basis. Admittedly, in spite of the rnetter bcfbre the I-lon'ble Supleme Court having bcen taken on rnany occasions, the Hon'ble Suprerne Court which is seized of thc nratter has been reluctant in granting any interinr protection to the Income -l'ax Department. Yet, the authorities concerned at the State level are not ready to accept the verdict passed by a majority ol'High Courts of different States on the same issue; and to make things lurthcr worse, the lncome Tax Department IS showing audacity by issuing notices continuously under Sections 148-A and C-J-T 12 148 through .he jurisdictional Assessing Officer ulrr''cas it ought to have been,rn[y in the facelcss manner 14 ln thc casc ol BANK OF INDIA vs. \SSISTAN'I' CON'{MISSIONEI{, INCOME TAXr'. on a,, issue ., lrethel it rias justifiable orr the part of the Inconte Tax l)cpat trent in nr)t fbllorving an crder passed by the adjudicating arrthor t'. orrly on thc glound that thc appeals are pcnding, the Division ]cnch ol thc Fligh Court o'-llonrtray lield at paragraph No.25 as urticr', r,iz., "25. l/lr. Paridwalla has rightly drawn out attent ( r to tl.re decision of this Court in Commissioner of lncome Tax vs. Smt. Godavaridevi Sarafl2 as also the recent decision l' the co- ordinate tlench of this Court in Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. lTO13 of which one of us (Justice G S. Kulkarni) was a memb,) wherern the Courl categorically observed that the Revenue r:rving not "acceptec" the judgment of the High Court would not m::rn that till the same is set aside in a manner known to law, it woul( oose its binding fc rce. Referring to the decislon of the Suprenrr: Court in Union of lndia vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corporation l.td.11 the Court obs;erved that the approach of the officials of Flr:r.,enue of treating clecisrons being ' not acceptable" was criticiz (,1 by the Supreme Court. ln such decision, following are tf€ observations made by the Supreme Court. relevant (2025) 170 taxmann.conr 422 (Bombay)l 19781 I l3 ITR 589 (Bombay) 2024) |65 1axrrann.corn 58I/300 Taxman 452 (Bomlrr' t 19921 taxnrann.conr I6i-i5 I:1. t 433 (SC) l I 1,3 "6. Sri Reddy is perhaps right in saying that the officers were not actuated by any mala fides in passing the impugned orders. They perhaps genuinely felt that the claim of the assessee was not tenable and that, if it was accepted, the Revenue would suffer. But what Sri Reddy overlooks is that we are not concerned here with the correctness or otherwise of their conclusron or of any factual malafides but with the fact that the officers, in reaching in their conclusion, by-passed two appellate orders in regard to the same issue which were placed before them, one of the Collector (Appeals) and the other of the Tribunal The High Court has, in our view, rightly cnt,cized this conduct of the Assistant Collectors and the harassment to the assessee caused by the failure of these officers to give effect to the orders of authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. lt cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasijudicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. The order of the Appellte Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not "acceptable" to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. lf this healthy L4 rule is not followed, the result will only be ur crue harassn'rent to assesses and chaos rn administr:ri on of ta r laws. 12 We have dealt wrth this aspect at some lerrqth beczruse it has been suggested by the lea'led Additional Solrcitor General that the observa tns made by the High Court, have been harsh on the offic3rs. lt is clear that the observations of the - gh Coul, seemingly vehement, and apparlrtly unpalatable to the Revenue, are only intended to c.trb a tendency in revenue matters which, if allowec to become widespread, could result in considera Jle hare ssment to the assesses-public without any b€ r efit to tie Revenue We would like to say that "he department should take these observations in |he prop,er spirit. The observatrons of the High O,)urt should be kept in mind in future and the utmost regilrd shorrld be paid by the adjudicating authorities a{r(J:he app,rllate authoflties to the requirements of JU(l c al discipline and the need for giving effect to the orc:rs of the higher appellate authorities which are birLding on t hern."

15. What is worryirlg this Bench rnore is thc i'acr thal an endeavour is being rnade whole heartedly to ensure n, )r to generate fur1her litigation on issues which have been laid t6 i:st by a large number o1'HLgh Clourts all ol whorn have taken a c{)'rsistcnt stand that the action ol'the Income'I'ax Department being ',iclative of thc 15 Finance Act,2020 and Financc AcL,2021. Now, in order to protect the interest of the Revenue as also that of the assessee, it would be tlitc at this juncturc, if we dispose of the writ petition with an o bservat ion /direction tl'rat the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the judgmenr rendered by this I{igh Courl in rhe case of Konkonala Ru,indra Reddy (l supra) shall however be subject ro tlrc outcome ol' tire Sl-Ps wl-rich were filed by the lncorne Tax Dcpaftment and which is pending consideration before the Hon,ble S upreme Coult.

16. In the given lacts and circumstances, this Bench is of the considered opinion that unless and until we do not timely dispose 01- rnatters which are squarely covcred by the decision of this Court and rvhich stands lortifled by the decisions ol- the various other IJigh Courts on the ver.y same issue, the pendency of this I{igh Courl" u,ould lulther be burdened which otherwise can be decided and disposed ol as a covered ntatter. Il . So far as the interest of the Revenue is concemed, we are ol the considered opinion that the interest of the Revenue has already bccn considered and protected, as has been observed in paragraphs -t6 36,37 and 38 ofthe order which, for ready referencc, ; reproduced hereunder 36 For all the aforesaid reasons, the rmpugneci r ttices issued and the proceedings drawn by the resplldenr- Department is neither tenable, nor sustit nable The notices so issued and the procedure adoptel being per se illegal, deserves to be and are accordirrrily set asice/quashed. As a consequence, all the rrrpugned ordors getting quashed, the consequential orders tr assed by the respondent-Department pursuant to the Iotices issued under Section 147 and 148 would a r;c get quashed and it is ordered accordingly. The reas:)n we are quashing the consequential order is on the pri|crples that when the initiation of the proceedings its: f was pror;edurally wrong, the subsequent orders a si: gets null fied automatically.

37. The preliminary objection raised by the peti i . ner s susrained and all these writ petitions stands allcv,/ed on this very lurisdictional issue. Since the impugned notices and orders are getting quashed on the pc, nt of juri:idiction, we are not inclined to proceed furt'riir and decide the other issues raised by the petitroner rvhich stands reserved to be raised and contendec in an apF ropriate proceedrngs.

38. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court had. rn tr3 case of ,|shish Agarwal, supra, as a one-time rt.:rasuTe exercising the powers under Artrcle 142 of the Corrstitution of lndia, permitted the Revenue to l'oceed uncer the substituted provisions, and this Court , owing the petitions only on the procedural flaw, tlrc ri!,ht '1_7 conferred on the Revenue would remain reserved to proceed further if they so want from the stage of the order of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashtsh Agarwal, supra.

18. We rvould onl1, fufthcr. Iike to make observations that since we ale inclincd to dispose ol the instant writ petition, conscious of the lact that [he earlier. order of this High Court in the case ol Ktnukoltt Rovindru Redd.y (1 supra) is subjected to challenge belbre the Hon'ble Supreme Courr in SLp No.3574 oi 2024. prel'ened by the Inconte Tax Deparlment, we make it clear.that l allowing of the instant writ petition is subject to outcome of the aforesaid SLP preferred by the Revenue against the decision of this High Court in the case of Karukala Ravintlrt Redtly (l supra). This. in other rvords, rvould mean that either of the parlies, if they so \\,ant, rnay lnove an appropriate petition seeking revival of this rvlit petition in ttre light of the decision ol- the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the pendlng SI-P on the very same issue.

19. Accordingly, the instant ivrit petition stands allowed in favoul ol the assessee so t'ar as the issue ol jurisdiction IS concemed. As a consequence, the irnpugned notice under challenge under Sectior.rs 148-A and 148 stands set aside/quashed. 18 The consequential olders, if any, also stand set asiJ:lquashed in sirnilar terrns as have been passed by this t{igh Court ir thc casc ol- Ktnkonolo Rtvindro Reld.y (l supra). There shall h. no o:dcr as to costs. Consequentl1,, misccllaneous petitions pendine. i l-anv. shalI stancl closed. To, '100 01 1 /TTRUE COPY// 1SD'M. OSMAN ALI BAIG'- JASSISTANT REGISi}RAR \, ', srdirorl oFFrcER

1. The Ministry of Finance, Union of lndia, lncome ftx Dr:r.rartment, New Delhi - \ r..

2. Officeof tr'le Commissioner, lncome Tax Departmeni, v1 nistry of Finance, Governmr:nt of lndia, New Delhi - '1 00 01 1 .

3. Office of the lncome Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Hyderabirrl lncome Tax Departme nt Office, 727 , Signature Towers, Sy. No. 6 (F, ) of Kondapur, Sy. No 37 (P) of l(othaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Serilinga rrpally (M), Rangareddy District, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500 084

4. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, lncome T€r). Deoartment, [/inistry of Financ,:, Government of lndia, New Delhi - 100 011 5. One CC tr SRI SHEETAL SRIKANTH Advocate [OP -,]l 6 One CC t: Ivls. B. SAPNA REDDY SC FOR INCOIVE I,\X DEPARTMENT loPUCl Two CD Oopies 7 KKS TJ o HIGH COURT DATED:02t0712025 ORDER WP.No.18729 of 2025 1A f ,n/ :,\ I itil j ll ))y' -5 /t -t'>t/ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS V