Back
BHARGAV D. KARIA, NIRAL R. MEHTA
Shell Gas BV – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation 1 Ahmedabad – Respondent
ORDER :
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)
1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.S.N. Soparkar with learned advocate Mr.B.S. Soparkar for the petitioner and learned senior standing counsel Mr.Varun Patel for the respondent appearing on advance copy.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Varun Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
2.1 Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged notice under Section 148A(b) dated 27th March, 2024, order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 dated 19th April, 2024 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2017-18.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under.
4.1 The Petitioner had not filed return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 assuming that it has no taxable income in India.
4.2 During the Financial Year 2016-17, the Petitioner has advanced Interest Free ECB loan of Rs.165,97,94,188/- to its subsidiary, an Indian Company, namely M/s.Hazira Port Pvt. Lt
Quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasons for their decisions to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary actions.
The necessity of recording reasons in administrative decisions is essential for transparency and fairness, and failure to do so constitutes a denial of justice.
A mere recital of vague reasons would not be sufficient nor a matter like the present one where the aggrieved party has a right to know the reasons for the decision being taken either for or against ....
It is a settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the Court is bound to give reasons ....
The necessity for clear and specific reasons in reopening assessments under the Income Tax Act is paramount; vague reasons do not justify such actions.
Administrative authorities must provide clear reasons for decisions affecting rights to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness.
Quasi-judicial authorities must provide reasons for their decisions, especially when condoning delays, to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrary actions.
The failure to provide valid notice and opportunity to be heard constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating quashing of ex parte orders under the GST Act.
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
