The court emphasized that a denial of reasonable opportunity violates natural justice, requiring the reconsideration of a trust's application for registration under tax statutes.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1962 (‘the Act’, for brevity) and is a trust, which is administering and manging the Cheraman Juma Masjid, registered with the Waqf Board. The status of the assessee for the purpose of Income Tax is that of a public trust. The grievances highlighted by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is against Ext.P6 order, by which, the application submitted by the petitioner for registration under Section 12A (1)(ac)(iii) of the Income Tax Act was rejected.

2. The facts that led to the filing of this Writ Petition are as follows:

The petitioner submitted an application in Form-10A for registration under Section 12A of the Act on 28.02.2023 as evidenced by Ext.P2. Ext.P3 is the application submitted on the same day under Form-10AB. The Ext.P4 is the audit report submitted in Form-10B, along with Exts.P2 and P3. The 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), after considering Ext.P2 application, passed an order dated 07.03.2023, providing provisional registration of the Trust under for a period of three years; for assessment years 2023-24 to 2025-26 in Form-10AC. Ext.P5 is the provisional registration granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext.P6 order rejecting Form- 10AB application, i,e. Ext.P3, for registration under of the Act. Ext.P7 is the intimation issued to the petitioner demanding the tax. The same was received by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P7(a). According to the petitioner, it came to know about the issuance of notices before issuance of Ext P6, only on receipt of Ext P7, on 29.12.2023. Thus, they came to know that, before issuing Ext.P6, certain notices were issued to the petitioner requiring the petitioner to furnish certain documents and information for the purpose of processing Ext.P3 application. However, as the petitioner failed to respond to the said notices, Ext.P6 order was passed rejecting the application. Exts. P8, P9, and P10 are the notices issued to the petitioner, according to the 1^st respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, none of the notices referred as Exts. P8, P9 and P10 were served upon the petitioner, in any of the recognized modes of service of notice and therefore, a reasonable opportunity as contemplated under Section 12AB (1)(b) of the Act was not granted to the petitioner before issuance of Ext.P6.

4. According to the petitioner, the consequence of Ext.P6 is that, by virtue of the said order, Ext.P5 provisional registration, which was valid for a period of three years, was cancelled and such cancellation could have been made only under the circumstances specified as per Section 12AB (4) of the Act. It was contended that, going by Ext.P6, and also the notices issued prior to the same, namely Exts. P8, P9 and P10, none of the reasons, as specified in Sub-Section (4) of Section 12AB are mentioned and hence Ext P6 is not legally sustainable. The challenge is raised against Ext.P6, in such circumstances.

5. A detailed statement has been submitted by the respondents, disputing contentions raised by the petitioner and also opposing the reliefs sought. Along with the said statement, the respondents produced Annexures R1(a) to R1(e), to substantiate the service of notices upon the petitioner through post as well as email. By placing reliance upon the same, it is contended that, all reasonable opportunities, as contemplated under the statute were extended to the petitioner, before issuing Ext.P6 order. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. With regard to the non- compliance procedure or the lack of reason for invoking