Failure to provide adequate opportunity for response and personal hearing invalidates administrative orders, violating principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

(KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent.

2. Mr.B.Ramanakumar, learned Senior Standing counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, the show cause notice was issued by the 1^st respondent on 16.02.2025, whereby they had directed the petitioner to file their reply on or before 21.02.2025. At that time, the Authorized Representative of the petitioner was hospitalized, due to which the petitioner was unable to collect all the supporting documents. Hence, on 21.02.2025, the petitioner had sought for adjournment till 08.03.2025. However, the respondent had granted time for filing the reply only up to 27.02.2025. Once again, a request was made by the petitioner for further extension of time till 08.03.2025. At this juncture, an intimation was issued by the respondent on 02.03.2025, whereby it was intimated to the petitioner that the personal hearing was scheduled to be held on 03.03.2025, i.e., the very next day. On 03.03.2025, the petitioner was unable to appear before the respondent either through VC or physically and hence, they filed a response requesting the 1^st respondent to adjourn the date of personal hearing. However, the same was not granted by the respondent. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed on 10.03.2025.

4. Further, he would contend that prior to the passing of impugned order, the respondent had neither granted time for filing the reply nor provided the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in which case, the said order has been passed in clear violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, he requests this Court to set aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, the learned Senior Standing counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly admitted that in this case, no reply was filed for the show cause notice dated 16.02.2025.

6. Further, he would submit that initially, a notice under Section 142(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT was issued by the respondent, for which, a detailed reply dated 06.09.2024 was filed by the petitioner. Therefore, though no reply was filed by the petitioner for the show cause notice dated 16.02.2025, by referring the aforesaid reply dated 06.09.2024, a detailed assessment order came to be passed by the respondent. Hence, he would contend that the impugned order is a well considered order, which needs no interference of this Court.

7. However, he had fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to the 2^nd respondent.

8. Heard the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing counsel for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

9. In the case on hand, a perusal of the impugned order and the other documents makes it clear that initially, a show cause notice was issued by the respondent on 16.02.2025, whereby the petitioner was directed to file their reply on or before 21.02.2025. On 21.02.2025, the petitioner requests the respondents for extension of time for filing the reply till 08.03.2025. However, the respondents had extended the time limit only up to 27.02.2025. Since the Authorized Representative of the petitioner was not well, they were unable to file their detailed reply along with the support