Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice P.B. BALAJI
M/S. BOMBAY HARDWARE PVT LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner (St) Intelligence I – Respondent
Natural Justice - Writ Petition - Act Section List: - Its Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition to challenge an order dated 26.12.2023, arguing that the proceedings lacked adherence to natural justice as the show cause notice was incorrectly posted in a less accessible section.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the procedural irregularity and referenced a prior case where due process was not followed, ultimately concluding that a fair opportunity must be granted to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was denied an opportunity to contest the proceedings due to improper notification of a show cause notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The importance of providing adequate notice and opportunity to be heard is fundamental to the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed; the earlier order is set aside, and a fresh assessment must be conducted.
The writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 26.12.2023 in reference No.ZD331223210475W on the ground that the proceedings have taken place violating the principles of natural justice. 2. Heard Mrs. Hema Muralikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that show cause notice has been posted in the View Additional Notices tab, instead of View Notices tab, which is the normal practice. The petitioner would have had an opportunity to contest the proceedings effectively, if it was posted in the View Notice tab. On 17.05.2024, the petitioner has also paid 10% of the tax demanded by the first respondent in the impugned order. 4. She has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sabari Infra Pvt. Ltd. /vs/ Assistant Commissioner (ST) in W.P.Nos.22369, etc., of 2023 dated 31.07.2023 reported in 2023(10) Centax 92 (Mad.) , wherein similar circumstances, this Court has held that the petitioner should be given a fair opportunity and the matter was remitted back to the Department to pass a fresh assessment order, after hearing the writ petitioner. 5. Following the decision passed by this Court in the above writ petition in WP. Nos.22369, etc., dated 31.07.2023, I am inclined to allow the writ petition with the following directions: (i) the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 26.12.2023 in reference No. ZD331223210475W passed by the 1st respondent is set aside. (ii) the petitioner shall be called for an enquiry by the respondent Department and the first respondent shall pass a fresh Assessment Order in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from today.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. 22.05.2024 Internet : Yes/No 1/3 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No mrp/rkp To
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
