9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f principles of natural justice - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - WP(C).No. 472 of 2017 (H) - - - Dated:- 10-1-2017 - K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. FOR THE PETITIONER : BY ADV. SRI.TOMSON T.EMMANUEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : SRI. V.K.SHAMSUDDIN ORDER The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.472 of 2017 is aggrieved with Ext.P5 assessment order and seeks for consideration of the rectification application filed at Ext.P6. The reason for filing rectification application is that the petitioner was not granted an adequate opportunity for hearing, thus resulting in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was issued with notice at Ext.P3, fixing the date of hearing on 05.11.2016. The petitioner did not turn up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral v. CTO (WC)[(2010) 3 KHC 299]. 4. However later on, in an appeal from a similar judgment directing a re-hearing, a Division Bench of this Court had modified the same to the extent of directing the Assessing Officers to give an opportunity for hearing, if the assessee specifically asks for that in their objection (W.A No.1317 of 2011 dated 02.11.2011). Hence in cases where the assessee does not ask for a personal hearing there could be a finalisation of the assessment without a hearing. But to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this ground it would always be ideal for the Assessing Officers to issue notice giving a specific period for filing objection and then after considering the objection to issue notice for hearing, even if the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otality of the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the order of assessment itself has to be set aside on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. Ext.P5 hence would stand set aside, without any observation on merits of the assessment made therein. 7. In W.P(C) No.750/2017 notice was issued as seen from Ext.P6 calling for objections and granting an opportunity of hearing at 11.00 a.m on 02.06.2016. As in the earlier case, the objections were filed at Ext.P7 dated 27.06.2016. The assessment order passed at Ext.P8 notice a reply of the dealer dated 1.7.2016 probably noticing the date of receipt of the objections. In Ext.P7 the petitioner had also sought for an opportunity for hearing. On the very same reasoning Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
