Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Gita Rattan International Business School - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 1176 of 2022 & CM. Appls. 3395-96 of 2022
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Assessment and Taxation
Headnote
(B) Right to Hearing - The court emphasized the necessity of providing a hearing to the petitioner before finalizing the rectification order, upholding the principles of natural justice and fair play. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested the assessment order as it was made without prior notice, despite substantial amounts having been deposited. Respondents argued that a notice had been issued, which was disputed by the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the rectification order and directed a fresh hearing, ensuring all grounds raised by the petitioner are considered.
Issues: The main issues included whether the assessment order was valid without a show cause notice and if procedural fairness was observed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that procedural fairness must be observed in administrative actions, and parties must have the opportunity to present their case adequately.
Result: Rectification order set aside, and fresh hearing ordered.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment order details and payments made. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 2. dispute over show cause notice and willingness for fresh hearing. (Para 3 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. notice and order publication directives. (Para 5 , 11) |
| 4. setting aside rectification order and staying coercive steps. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (ORAL)--The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Appellant impugns suo motu assessment order dated 14.01.2019 as well as the rectification order dated 27.05.2021.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no show cause notice was issued prior to passing of the suo motu assessment order 14.01.2019. She further submits that show cause notice dated 12.03.2021, received post the assessment order, was duly responded to by a detailed reply dated 27.03.2021. She submits that the impugned rectification order dated 27.05.2021, though refers to the reply given, however, no grounds taken by the petitioner have been dealt with in the rectification order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a total amount of Rs.72,46,595/- has already been deposited with the respondents (Rs.5,00,000/- on 14.01.2019, Rs.5,92,485/- on 23.03.2021 and thereafter Rs.61,54,110/- on 31.03.2021).
5. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for respondents.
6. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the assessment order dated 14.01.2019 preceded a show cause notice dated 08.10.2019 on account of wrong filing of PTR for the Financial Years 2004-05 to 2017-18.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes receipt of the said notice dated 08.10.2018.
8. Learned counsel for respondents submits that that without prejudice to the above, respondents are willing to give a fresh hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh detailed speaking rectification order.
9. In view of the above, the rectification order dated 27.05.2021 is set aside. Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order taking into account the grounds raised by the petitioner in their reply as well as the objections submitted to them.
10. Till passing of the rectification order, no further coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order dated 14.01.2019.
11. Copy of the order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through e-mail by the Court Master.
