Himachal Pradesh High Court Stays Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148, Awaits Supreme Court Verdict in Technical Textiles Case [Read Order]
Following judicial discipline, the bench refrained from expressing its own opinion on the matter.
![Himachal Pradesh High Court Stays Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148, Awaits Supreme Court Verdict in Technical Textiles Case [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/06/28/2055851-himachal-pradesh-high-court-1.webp "Himachal Pradesh High Court Stays Reassessment Proceedings Under Section 148, Awaits Supreme Court Verdict in Technical Textiles Case [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla stayed reassessment proceedings initiated against Prakash Chand Jadaik under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pending the final decision of the Supreme Court in a related matter. The court disposed of the writ petition while directing that the outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India & Ors....
In a recent ruling, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla stayed reassessment proceedings initiated against Prakash Chand Jadaik under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, pending the final decision of the Supreme Court in a related matter.
The court disposed of the writ petition while directing that the outcome of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India & Ors. vs. Association of Technical Textiles Manufacturers and Processors & Anr. would govern the present case.
The petitioner, Prakash Chand Jadaik, had challenged the legality of a notice dated March 26, 2025, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, arguing that it was illegal, without jurisdiction, and based on improper sanction under Section 151 of the Act. Senior Advocate Vishal Mohan, representing the petitioner, contended that the notice and subsequent proceedings were flawed. On the other hand, the respondents, represented by Ad advocates Neeraj Sharma and Ishan Kashyap, waived service of notice but defended the proceedings.
The high court bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja noted that the validity of similar notices under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was already under scrutiny before the Supreme Court in the aforementioned Special Leave Petition (SLP (c) Diary No. 17041/2024).
Following judicial discipline, the bench refrained from expressing its own opinion on the matter. The HC stated that continuing the reassessment proceedings during the pendency of the Supreme Court case could lead to unnecessary litigation and complications. Consequently, the court stayed all further proceedings before the competent authority until the Supreme Court delivers its verdict.
The High Court noted that “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 ( 2025:HHC:19535 ) 3 multiplicity of litigation”
The outcome of the Supreme Court’s judgement will now determine whether the reassessment notice against Prakash Chand Jadaik stands or is quashed.
Following judicial discipline, the bench refrained from expressing its own opinion on the matter.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
