India Steel Continental Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. 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 multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to stay such proceedings till the time issue is finally decided…
- Para 55. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge 24th September 2025 (sanjeev) Judge (Sushil Kukreja)
Judgment
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the petitioner: Mr. Avneet Singh, Mr. Pranav Jain and Ms. Anuja Mehta, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Neeraj Sharma and Mr. Ishaan Kashyap, Advocates, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of following substantive relief:- “(a). Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned order and notice u/ 148A(a) and u/s 148 respectively dated
24.04.2024 (Annexure P-2) and (Annexure P-3) for Assessment Year 2017-18 being illegal and without jurisdiction and in violation to the procedure of law and without proper and legal sanction.” 2
The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 24.04.2024 (Annexure P-3) 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.
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 24.04.2024 (Annexure P-3), 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.
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 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
Operative part
The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge 24th September 2025 (sanjeev) Judge (Sushil Kukreja)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 24 Sep 2025.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.