SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 12384

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C. SARAVANAN
Samuel Athisayaraj Paulraj – Appellant
Versus
Assessment Unit – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.Nos.12909 & 12910 of 2023 Samuel Athisayaraj Paularaj No.7, Annai Indra Gandhi Street, Selaiyur, Chennai – 600 073. ... Petitioner Vs.

1. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Ministry of Finance Government of India New Delhi.

2. Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Ward 22(4) TBM II floor, tambaram (Business Range), Ramakrishna Street, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1st respondent in DIN.ITBA/AST/S/147/2022-23/1051500294(1) and quash the order dated

28.03.2023 for the Assessment Year 2015-2016.

For Petitioner : M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan For Respondents : Mr.Avinash Krishnan Ravi Junior Standing Counsel

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Assessment Order dated 28.03.2023 passed by the 1st respondent under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, for the Assessment Year 2015-

2016.

2. The challenge to the impugned order is only on the ground that there is a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner repeatedly asked for a personal hearing, however, without holding a personal hearing, the order was passed.

3. It is noticed that the dispute pertains to the Assessment year 2015-

2016. The last date for completing the assessment would have expired on 31.03.2023. The impugned order was passed on 28.03.2023. This is well within the prescribed time limit and before the assessment would have lapsed under Section 153 of the respective GST Enactments.

4. However, considering the fact that the petitioner’s request for a personal hearing was not considered, and following the consistent view taken under similar circumstances, the case is remitted back to the 1st respondent to pass a fresh order on merits, after affording an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.

02.02.2026 raja Neutral Citation : Yes / No To

1. The Assessment Unit Income Tax Department Ministry of Finance Government of India New Delhi.

2. Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Ward 22(4) TBM II floor, tambaram (Business Range), Ramakrishna Street, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045.

C.SARAVANAN, J.

raja

02.02.2026

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top