The case affirms that adherence to natural justice is crucial in tax assessment procedures.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court, aggrieved by Ext.P1 order, passed by the assessing authority, whereby a demand of additional tax has been confirmed on the petitioner, on the ground that, there was a discrepancy noticed, between the turnover reported by the assessee along with the returns and duly supported by audited statements, and the turnover that was detected from the KVATIS system. It was alleged in the notice issued to the petitioner that, the discrepancy noticed was in the purchase turnover, in that many of the invoices noticed in the KVATIS system had not been accounted by the petitioner in his books of accounts, the copies of which were submitted to support the figures declaring the purchase turnover in the returns submitted by the petitioner. In the writ petition, it is stated that, Ext.P1 order was passed by the assessing authority, without granting the petitioner sufficient time to compare the statement of alleged suppressed purchase turnover, that was forwarded to it by the respondent, and the purchase turnover that was actually accounted by the petitioner. The contention against Ext.P1 is therefore that the said order was passed in a haste and without complying with the rules of natural justice.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent.

3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I note from a perusal of Ext.P1 order that, while the petitioner had been repeatedly requesting for the details relating to the alleged purchase turnover, and the respondent had furnished the entire details gathered from the KVATIS system to the petitioner, the petitioner was not given ample time to respond to the alleged discrepancy, with material to substantiate its contention that all the purchases effected by it had actually been accounted by it. I find that, this is a serious lapse on the part of the respondent, and one that would vitiate Ext.P1 order on the ground of non-compliance with the rules of natural justice. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P1 order, and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders in lieu of Ext.P1, after hearing the petitioner, and after considering the objections of the petitioner to the allegations regarding suppression of purchase turnover. To enable the respondent to pass fresh orders as directed, I direct the petitioner to appear before the respondent ,at his office, at 11 a.m., on 13.09.2017, on which date the petitioner shall also produce necessary material to substantiate its contention that there was no suppression of purchase turnover. The respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed, within a period of one month thereafter.

The writ petition is disposed as above.