1. Parties disputed whether the reassessment notice was legally valid, with the petitioner alleging procedural illegality and the Revenue maintaining that proceedings must align with subsequent Supreme Court clarifications. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 5034
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, Yogesh Jaswal, JJ
GM Powertech – Appellant
Versus
Income Tax Officer – Respondent
CWP No. 14080 of 2025
Important Points
The court closed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh challenge against Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, following the Supreme Court's remand of similar reassessment matters for fresh consideration.
Subject
Tax Law - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Income Tax Act - Reassessment Notices - Remand by Supreme Court - Where the Supreme Court has set aside High Court judgments and remitted matters for fresh consideration in light of amending legislation (Section 147A), the jurisdictional High Court may grant liberty to the petitioner to approach the court afresh to challenge the new provisions. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the reassessment notice in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer Vs. Tej Partap Singh.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the reassessment notice in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Income Tax Officer Vs. Tej Partap Singh.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Mohan, Praveen Sharma
For the Respondents: Neeraj Sharma, Ishan Kashyap
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vishal Mohan, Praveen Sharma
For the Respondents: Neeraj Sharma, Ishan Kashyap
Table of Contents
2. The court observed that Supreme Court rulings on similar reassessment matters necessitated the remittance of the case, granting liberty to challenge specific new legislative amendments. (Para 5 )
3. Where the Supreme Court remits a batch of matters for fresh consideration, High Courts may dispose of pending petitions with liberty to petitioners to challenge subsequent legislative amendments. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. The petition is closed with liberty to approach the court afresh, including challenging recent legislative amendments, subject to a ninety-day interim protection period. (Para 6 )
5. What is the procedure for High Courts when the Supreme Court remits a matter due to new legislative amendments?
High Courts should permit petitioners to amend their pleadings to specifically challenge newly introduced legislative provisions, such as Section 147A of the Income Tax Act, allowing for fresh adjudication on the merits. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
6. Does a remitted petition require an immediate final adjudication on the merits by the High Court?
No, the court may dispose of the current petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the court afresh to incorporate challenges to subsequent legislative developments within a defined timeframe. (Para 6 )
Ajay Mohan Gooel, Judge (Oral)
With the consent of the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of today itself.
2h. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court, inter alia, praying for the following relief:-
“(a) That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue writ i in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby quashing/setting aside the impugned notice issued under Section 148 dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P-3) 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 01.09.2025, in the following terms:-
“3. The subject matter of the challenge in this petition, whereby the legality, validity and propriety of impugned notice under Section 148, dated 17.06.2025 (An.nexure P-3) is already under consideration beforPe the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (c) No. 17040/2024, titled as The Assistant CommissiHoner of Income Tax & Another Vs. M/s Dr. Reddy Laboratories Ltd. with connected matters.
4. Since the issue involvedf in this petition is already pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, kee ping in view the judicial discipline, we refrain ourselvtes from giving our opinion with respect to impugned notice under Section 148, dated 17.06.2025 (Annexure P-3), as assailed in this petition. Weo direct that the present petition shall be governed by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Cthe decision thereto, shall be binding on this case also.
5. The continuity of proceedings before the competent hauthority, in view of the pendency of the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court is bound to lead to g multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, we deem it i appropriate to stay such proceedings till the time issue H 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.”
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 in.to force, and that the alleged anomalous situationP, if any, has been removed. It was additionally submitted that the power to enact retrospective amenHdments is well settled in law, and that fresh notices will now be issued to assessees in accordance with the clarified position, so that pending reassessmefnt proceedings may be concluded in accordance with law.
19. Conversely, it h as been vehemently urged on behalf of the assesseets that the new Amendment is not ‘clarificatory’ in nature but is rather an abortive attempt to fasten penal liability retrospectively, which is imopermissible under law. It is their contention that the amending laws having antedated civil consequences Cought to be construed strictly.
20. In all fairness, we may add that several other hcontentions have also been raised by both sides, which we do not consider it necessary to advert to at this stage g in light of the order we propose to pass. In the facts of the i present batch, we are of the considered view that it is not H necessary for this Court to examine the merits of the rival submissions concerning the correctness of the impugned judgments or the scope of the competing precedents at this juncture.
21. It appears to us that the assessees would be entitled to challenge the amending provisions as elaborated upon heretofore, for
