9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Impugning assessment order under Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957 - Opportunity of being heard not provided - Maintainability of writ petition under art. 226 of the Constitution. Analysis: The petitioners challenged the assessment order made by the respondent-Agrl. ITO under s. 19(4) of the Karnataka Agrl. I.T. Act, 1957 for the assessment year 1976-77. The petitioners argued that they did not receive the notice in Form No. 5 in time to file objections before the final assessment order was passed, thus denying them an opportunity to be heard as required by the Act. The respondent contended that the notice was sent and received by the petitioners, shifting the responsibility to them to ascertain the next hearing date. The High Court Government pleader argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners had an alternative remedy under s. 21 of the Act to challenge the assessment order showing sufficient cause. The counsel for the petitioners relied on a Division Bench ruling to support their contention that a fresh notice should have been issued by the respondent-ITO when the original notice was not served in time. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument, emphasizing the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for the petitioners to be heard before making the assessment. The court highlighted a previous case where a similar situation occurred, leading to the assessment order being set aside due to the lack of a proper opportunity for the assessee to present objections. Upon reviewing the records, it was evident that the notice was served on the petitioners at a location distant from the respondent's office, making it impractical for the petitioners to respond promptly. The court concluded that the respondent should have issued a fresh notice after realizing the delay in serving the original notice to ensure a reasonable opportunity for the petitioners to participate in the assessment proceedings. The court held that the assessment order was made without affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners, rendering it unsustainable and liable to be set aside. Regarding the argument of alternative remedy raised by the respondent, the court dismissed it, stating that the lack of jurisdiction due to inadequate opportunity justified the court's intervention under art. 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the assessment order, penalty, and demand notice were set aside, with the liberty granted to the respondent to continue proceedings from the proposition notice stage, without the necessity of issuing a fresh notice. The petitioners were directed to appear before the respondent and cooperate to complete the assessment proceedings in compliance with the law. In conclusion, the court set aside the assessment order due to the lack of a reasonable opportunity for the petitioners to be heard, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness in assessment proceedings.
|
