9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kept on seeking adjournments purportedly for the said production of documents. Hence the contention of the appellant that Ext.P8 order had been issued without affording him an opportunity to be heard and that it violated the principles of natural justice cannot be countenanced. As regards the contention based on Section 250 of the IT Act that the said provision mandates the issuance of a separate notice for hearing and that such a notice was never issued to the appellant before the issuance of Ext.P8 order, the same is also not sustainable. A perusal of Exts.P4 and P6 notices issued to the appellant reveal that the same have been issued under Section 250 of the IT Act. The said notices satisfy all the mandates of the said section. They carr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime and was using the adjournment applications merely as a delay tactic. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, save to modify the latter part of the judgment that requires the appellant to remit 20% of the disputed tax as a pre-condition for filing a stay petition along with the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. - THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR And THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M. FOR THE PETITIONER : BY ADVS. ASWIN GOPAKUMAR ANWIN GOPAKUMAR ADITYA VENUGOPALAN MAHESH CHANDRAN SARANYA BABU ANGITA T. MENON ABHISHEK S. TANYA KADEEJA FOR THE RESPONDENT : BY ADVOCATE SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC JUDGMENT Syam Kumar V. M. , J. Appellant who was the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.30276 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted time period, it would be presumed that the appellant has nothing to say in the matter and the Department would proceed ahead based on the material available on record. The appellant on 18.08.2023 preferred another adjournment application (Ext.P7) seeking an adjournment till 02.09.2023. This time, however, without granting any further time as sought by the appellant, NFAC rendered Ext.P8 order dated 23.08.2023. The above Writ Petition was filed inter alia seeking to quash Ext.P8 order issued by the 1st respondent and all further proceedings therefrom as well as to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to provide an opportunity to the appellant for personal hearing on Ext.P3 appeal preferred by him. 3. The learned Single ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50, as according to him, they can only be treated as notices envisaged under Section 250(4) which empowers the concerned officer to undertake an inquiry while considering the appeal. Thus the learned counsel contends that there has been no hearing at all on the appeal and Ext.P8 had been issued by the NFAC in blatant violation of principles of natural justice as well as without complying with the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 250 of the IT Act. Submission of additional documents to buttress the appeal contentions is an integral part of the hearing envisaged under Section 250 of the IT Act for which the notice had been issued to his client and proceeding to hear the appeal without waiting for such documents called for, accordi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iolation of principles of natural justice. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. We note that the NFAC had vide Ext.P4 notice dated 20.07.2023 intimated the appellant that Ext.P3 appeal stands posted for consideration to 31.07.2023. He was clearly called upon vide the said notice to furnish his written submission on or before 31.07.2023. It had been pointed out in the notice that if no documents are received within the stipulated time period, it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter and the department would proceed with the hearing ahead based on the material available. To this notice, the appellant waited till 31.07.2023, which is the actual hearing date, and on that date, he submitted Ext.P5 seeking an adjournme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of a separate notice for hearing and that such a notice was never issued to the appellant before the issuance of Ext.P8 order, the same is also not sustainable. A perusal of Exts.P4 and P6 notices issued to the appellant reveal that the same have been issued under Section 250 of the IT Act. The said notices satisfy all the mandates of the said section. They carried the forewarning as mentioned above, explicitly conveying that the same has been issued with respect to the hearing envisaged under Section 250 of the Act. The said fact, having been clearly expressed on the face of the notice itself, there was no scope to contend that the said notices were issued under Section 150 (4) as part of the inquiry that would be conducted by the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
