9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hara James the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. M/S Malabar Institute of Medical Science Mini Bye Pass Road, Calicut is the petitioner in the instant writ petitions. The petitioner challenges orders made under Section 25(1) of KVAT Act (for short 'the Act') as illegal and violative of principles of natural Justice. The impugned orders cover assessment years 2011-2012; 2012-2013, 2013- 2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016. 2.1 W. P (C) No. 11838 of 2019 is treated as the lead case as the relevant dates which have bearing on disposal of the writ petition are substantially same. The learned counsel have referred to the dates and events in W.P(C) No. 11838/2019 and have stated that by referring to the dates in l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sserts that there is no occasion warranting reassessment under Section 25(1) of the Act. The respondent issued show cause notices for a few assessment years and should have given opportunity of hearing before an order under Section 25(1) of the Act is passed. The respondents do not dispute the Statutory obligation to afford personal hearing to petitioner in re-assessment under Section 25(1) of the Act. But the reply given is that the objection stated on 01.03.2019, do not in any way show that a new case is made out against the proposed assessment warranting personal hearing by respondent No.1. Therefore, the Assessing Officer felt that affording opportunity of personal hearing would be an empty formality, keeping in mind the opportunities a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irly complex and the financial implication resulting from the proposed assessment is substantial as well. Under those circumstances the events noted in record between 16.01.2019 and 01.03.2019 do not satisfy that opportunity of personal hearing was given to petitioner. Likewise admittedly there is no hearing after 01.03.2019 to make good the deficiency in affording opportunity of hearing prior to 01.03.2019. The argument that objections filed on 01.03.2019 do not warrant hearing, is subjective and R1 could not have assumed that hearing would be nothing but an empty formality. On the ground that without giving petitioner opportunity of hearing on the objections filed in this behalf, Ext.P1 order is set aside and the matter restored to file o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
