Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J.
Tvl. Nandhu Trading, Represented by its Proprietor Karpagam. – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Tirupur. – Respondent
W.P. No. 9546 of 2021 & W.M.P. Nos. 10144 & 10147 of 2021
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Natural Justice - Assessment Order - The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, emphasizing the importance of principles of natural justice and the need for the petitioner to be given an opportunity of personal hearing.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Assessment Order dated 13.11.2017, claiming violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner's reply to the notices was not considered, and no opportunity of personal hearing was provided.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order was in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity of personal hearing, and the reply filed by the petitioner was not considered. The court quashed the impugned order and remanded the case back to the respondent for a fresh order.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, failure to provide an opportunity of personal hearing, non-consideration of petitioner's reply to the notices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of principles of natural justice and held that the impugned order was liable to be quashed due to the failure to provide an opportunity of personal hearing and non-consideration of the petitioner's reply.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The case was remanded back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law, with directions for the petitioner to appear before the respondent for a hearing.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Impugned Order made in TIN:33586337219/2015-2016 pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-2016 dated 20.08.2019 and the Impugned Consequential Distraint Notice in Form I made in TIN:33586337219/2015-2016 pertaining to Assessment Year 2015-2016 dated 06.08.2020 on the file of the Respondent and quash the same.)
1. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondent.
2. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. Earlier the petitioner had challenged the Assessment Order dated 13.11.2017 in W.P.No.2632 of 2018. By an order dated 07.02.2018, W.P.No.2632 of 2018 was allowed by setting aside the Assessment Order dated 13.11.2017, subject to the petitioner depositing 15% of the disputed tax within a period of three (3) weeks from the aforesaid order.
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner was issued with three notices dated 20.06.2018, followed by the second notice dated 19.09.2018 and by the third notice dated 28.09.2018.
4. A specific case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the Final Hearing Notice dated 28.09.2018, the petitioner has replied to the notices on 22.10.2018. However, without adverting to the reply filed by the petitioner which has been acknowledged by the officer, the Impugned Order has been passed on 20.08.2019. It is submitted that the Impugned Order is clearly in violation of principles of natural justice.
5. It is further submitted that if the respondent had taken note of the reply filed by the petitioner dated 22.10.2018 and had given an opportunity of personal hearing, then the petitioner would have explained the case clearly to the respondent. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand would submit that the Final Hearing Notice dated 28.09.2018 itself called upon the petitioner for a personal hearing within a period of fifteen (15) days from the aforesaid notice, on any working day along with the available records, failing which, the proposals contained in the notices will be confirmed.
7. It is submitted that although the petitioner may have filed a copy of the reply dated 22.10.2018, nothing precluded the petitioner from coming for personal hearing within a period of fifteen (15) days from 28.09.2018.
8. That apart, it is submitted that on 28.09.2018, a copy of the notice was also e-mailed to the petitioner. However, the petitioner neither choose to file any reply nor appear for the personal hearing.
9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
10. Although the petitioner was required to appear for personal hearing within a period of fifteen (15) days as per the Final Hearing Notice dated 28.09.2018, it appears that the petitioner was not called for a personal hearing. Even after the petitioner filed reply/representation on 22.10.2018, the Impugned Order also does not discuss about the same, therefore the petitioner has not responded to the notices issued.
11. Considering the above, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the case is remanded back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of forty five (45) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The first hearing of the case shall be held before the respondent on 17.07.2023. The petitioner shall positively appear before the respondent and make his submission. The respondent shall thereafter pass an appropriate order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of thirty (30) days thereafter.
12. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, conne
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard and the need for an opportunity of personal hearing before p....
Compliance with court orders is crucial, and failure to do so may result in the authority's right to initiate recovery proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the word 'may' in a notification should be interpreted in context, and in this case, it was held to be mandatory, requiring the authority t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to principles of natural justice in assessment proceedings, including providing the petitioner with a reasonable opportun....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the statutory right of the petitioner to a personal hearing under Section 144B(7)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the requirement for the ....
Principles of natural justice must be adhered to in the issuance of assessment orders, and the opportunity to be heard must be provided before such orders are issued.
Failure to produce required records and seeking adjournments without valid reasons can justify an assessment order based on filed statutory Forms.
The clarification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes did not bind the petitioner, and the assessment orders needed to be redone. The court emphasized the need for timely completion of ass....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the breach of natural justice leading to the quashing of assessment orders and the direction for the petitioner to remit 10% of the disputed tax de....
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
