9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 1065X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther with the pre-assessment notice issued to the petitioner. HELD THAT:- On a perusal of Ext.P5 order, there is no mention with regard to any hearing having been extended to the petitioner. Under the said circumstances, without going into the other aspects urged by the petitioner in his challenge against Ext.P5 penalty order, Ext.P5 penalty order is set aside on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice, and direct the 4th respondent to pass fresh orders in lieu thereof, after hearing the petitioner and taking note of the assessment order that has since been passed by the Assessing Authority, in relation to the petitioner for the same assessment year. Validity of assessment order - main challenge to the said order is on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Assessing Authority under the KVAT Act had also issued a pre-assessment notice proposing an assessment against the petitioner for the said assessment year. During the pendency of the writ petition, however, an assessment order came to be passed in relation to the petitioner for the same assessment year and it is therefore that the petitioner approached this Court through W.P.(C) No.23545/2019, impugning the said assessment order, inter alia on the ground that the assessment order was passed while the writ petition challenging the penalty proceedings were pending before this Court and that the assessment order was communicated to the petitioner after the date of the interim order passed in W.P.(C) No.12596/2019 that restrained the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent order, I find that the main challenge to the said order is only that the said order was passed at a time when there was a stay in operation, from this Court, against the passing of the said order. I find however, that the interim order, restraining the respondents from proceeding further with the pre-assessment notice was dated 06.08.2019, while Ext.P6 assessment order itself is dated 27.07.2019, although it may have been served on the petitioner only subsequently. In my view, in the absence of any jurisdictional error or allegation regarding violation of the rules of natural justice, this Court would not be justified in interfering with Ext.P6 order in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
