Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Ajay Mohan Goel, Juudge (Oral)

Wioth the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of today itself.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has ahppro ached this Court, inter alia, praying for the following relief:-

“(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, i order or direction, thereby quashing/setting aside the H impugned notice under Section 148 dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) being illegal, without jurisdiction, against the procedure and further based on the illegal sanction/approval under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and all proceedings/actions consequent thereto.”

3. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court in terms of order dated 25.06.2025, in the following terms:-

“2. The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 20.03.2024 (Annexure P-2) is already under consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (c) Dia.ry No.17041/2024., case titled Union of IndiaP & Ors. Vs. Association of Technical Textiles Manufacturers and Processors & Anr. H

3. Since the issue involved in this petition is already pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, keeping inf view the judicial discipline, we refrain ourselves from giving our opinion with respect to impugned not ice under Section 148, dated 20.03.2024 (Annetxure P-2), 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 theo decision thereto, shall be binding on this case also.

4. The continuity of proceedings before the competent Cauthority, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is bound to lead multiplicity hof litigation. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to stay such proceedings till the time issue is finally decided by g the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Ordered accordingly.i

5. The petition is disposed of in above terms, so also the H pending application(s), if any.”

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was pleased to dispose of a large batch of reassessment matters in terms of judgment dated 10.04.2026, passed in C.A. No.4716 of 2026, titled as Income Tax Officer Vs. Tej Partap Singh, by observing as under:-

“18. It is urged that, in light of the divergent views taken by the High Courts owing to perceived ambiguity in the existing law, Parliament has now made the clarificatory amendment with retrospective effect from 01.04.2021, the date on which the original provisions came into force, and that the alleged anomalous situation, if any, has been removed. It was additionally submitted that the power to enact retrospective amendments is wel.l settled in law, and that fresh notices will now Pbe issued to assessees in accordance with the clarified position, so that pending reassessment pHroceedings may be concluded in accordance with law.

19. Conversely, it has been veh emently urged on behalf of the assessees that thfe new Amendment is not ‘clarificatory’ in nature but is rather an abortive attempt to fasten penal liability retrospectively, which is impermissible untder law. It is their contention that the amending laws having antedated civil consequences ought to be construed strictly.

20o. In all fairness, we may add that several other contentions have also been raised by both sides, which Cwe do not consider it necessary to advert to at this stage in light of the order we propose to pass. In the facts of the hpresent batch, we are of the considered view that it is not necessary for this Court to examine the merits of the rival g submissions concerning the correctness of the impugned i judgments or the scope of the competing precedents at H this juncture.

21. It appears to us that