2021 (5) TMI 602 - HC - Indian Laws

Principles of natural justice - time to file objections was given but notice was served early and assessment order was passed - HELD THAT - Ext.P6 provided for a period of 15 days time to the assessee to file an objection. Perusal of Ext.P7 shows that Ext.P6 was served on the petitioner on 24.03.2021. Necessarily the period stipulated in Ext.P6 ought to have been provided to him even if petitioner had evaded the notice till then. Since it has come on record through Ext.P7 itself that the petitioner was served with Ext.P6 notice only on 24.03.2021 which contained the stipulation that he is given 15 days time it was necessary to grant such period of time to file objections. Passing an order without complying with the period of time stipulated in Ext.P6 notice amounts to violation of natural justice. No prejudice would be caused to the revenue also if Ext.P7 is set aside on the ground of natural justice since an order of assessment can be passed afresh after granting sufficient opportunity of hearing - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to Assessment Order for the year 2017-18, Violation of principles of natural justice

In this judgment, the petitioner challenged the Ext.P7 Assessment Order issued by the 1st respondent for the year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the notice granting him 15 days to file objections was served late, and the Assessment Order was passed within 5 days thereafter, leading to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the Government Pleader argued that the petitioner had been evading service of notice repeatedly. The court examined the contentions and found that the notice indeed provided for 15 days to file objections, and since it was served late, the petitioner should have been granted the stipulated time even if he had evaded the notice. The court held that passing an order without complying with the stipulated time in the notice amounted to a violation of natural justice. Considering the circumstances, the court concluded that setting aside Ext.P7 would not cause prejudice to the revenue, as a fresh order of assessment could be passed after granting a sufficient opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the court set aside Ext.P7 and directed the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders of assessment after hearing the petitioner in accordance with the law. The petitioner was instructed to appear for a hearing on a specified date, and the Assessing Officer was directed to consider the petitioner's request to correct the TIN in the returns and pass orders accordingly. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, and the court provided detailed directions for the assessment process moving forward.