Back
M. S. SONAK, JITENDRA JAIN
Soremartec S. A. , Luxembourg, through its authorised representative in India, namely, Mr Vikas Gattani – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Mantralaya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(M.S. Sonak J.)
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioners challenge the impugned order dated 19 March 2022 and the impugned demand notice of the same date on the grounds of failure of natural justice, non- application of mind and legal mala fides.
4. Petitioners 1 and 2 are established per Luxembourgian Laws. Petitioner No.3 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act of 1956.
5. Petitioners 1 and 2 had, inter alia, granted the 3rd Petitioner the right to use their IPR in India. In that sense, Petitioners Nos.1, 2, and 3 are group companies. By a product license agreement effective from 1 April 2013, the right to use such IPR in India was also extended to M/s. Imsofer Manufacturing India Pvt Ltd. A product license agreement effective from 1 January 2013 was also entered into between the 2nd Petitioner and MPG Multi Production Group India Pvt Ltd concerning IPRs.
6. On 5 May 2023, the Petitioner No. 3 in Pune, India, received a notice dated 3 May 2023 in Form 301 for assessment for FY 2015-2016, addressed to the 1st and 2nd
The assessment order was quashed for violating natural justice principles, including failure to provide notice and opportunity to be heard, and was found to be backdated beyond the statutory limitati....
An assessment order has to be made known either directly or constructively to the party affected by the order in order to enable him to prefer an appeal. Mere writing of an order and keeping the same....
The validity of an order is not always null and void solely on the ground of non-adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice, and the breach of the audi alteram partem rule does not ipso-facto lea....
The court held that failure to provide a personal hearing as mandated by Section 144B of the Income Tax Act renders the assessment order invalid, violating principles of natural justice.
Assessment - Ground of violation of principle of natural justice-not giving adequate and effective opportunity of hearing not made out - series of adjournments were granted on the prayer of the petit....
The assessment order was quashed due to violations of natural justice and failure to follow mandatory procedures under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act.
The assessment order was invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements under Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, breaching principles of natural justice.
Authorised officer may, during the course of the search or seizure or within a period of sixty days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search was executed, make a reference to ....
The assessment order issued without proper notice and outside statutory limitation is invalid, emphasizing the necessity of compliance with the principles of natural justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
