2009 (3) TMI 152 - HC - Customs

Writ Jurisdiction when alternative remedy is available held that - It is fairly well settled that even when an alternative remedy is available against an order, a Writ Court can interfere where the same is made in violation of the principles of natural justice or where the statute on the basis whereof the order is made, is itself under II challenge. The present case falls in the first of the above situations and calls for our intervention in view of the admitted factual position that the petitioner had not been heard before the passing of the impugned order order in original quashed matter remitted for fresh order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order challenged on grounds of lack of notice and opportunity to be heard.
2. Non-provision of parameters for finalization of assessment to the petitioner.
3. Quashing of impugned assessment order and remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment order after hearing the petitioner.

Issue 1:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the assessment order primarily due to the absence of any notice or opportunity to be heard during the assessment process. The Court noted that the assessing authority had not provided any opportunity for the petitioner to present their case before finalizing the assessment order. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, even if alternative remedies are available. As a result, the Court deemed the impugned order unsustainable and intervened in the matter despite the availability of an appeal process. The Court decided to quash the assessment order and remit the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment order after affording the petitioner a proper hearing.

Issue 2:
The petitioner contended that they were not provided with a copy of the parameters used for finalizing the assessment, which hindered their ability to effectively participate in the assessment process. The Court acknowledged the importance of the petitioner having access to the parameters to ensure a fair hearing before the Assessing Authority. In response to this concern, the Court directed that a copy of the parameters referred to in the assessment order be made available to the petitioner. The respondents had no objection to providing the parameters to the petitioner, and a copy of the communication containing the parameters was handed over to the petitioner's counsel during the court proceedings.

Issue 3:
In light of the lack of notice and opportunity to be heard, and the non-provision of assessment parameters to the petitioner, the Court decided to allow the writ petition. The Court quashed the impugned assessment order dated 7-2-2009 and instructed the matter to be sent back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment order in compliance with the law after affording the petitioner a proper hearing. The Court set a specific date for the petitioner to appear before the Assessing Authority and warned that failure to appear would allow the Assessing Authority to proceed with a fresh order without further notice. The Court emphasized the importance of the Assessing Authority fairly and properly examining the petitioner's contentions during the fresh assessment process. Additionally, no costs were imposed in this matter.