Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
+ Post an Article
Post a New Article
Title :
0/200 char
Description :
Max 0 char
Category :
Co Author :

In case of Co-Author, You may provide Username as per TMI records

Delete Reply

Are you sure you want to delete your reply beginning with '' ?

Delete Issue

Are you sure you want to delete your Issue titled: '' ?

Articles

Back

All Articles

Advanced Search
Reset Filters
Search By:
Search by Text :
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms
Select Date:
FromTo
Category :
Sort By:
Relevance Date

Ex-parte assessment order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice entails civil consequences

Bimal jain
Court Voids Tax Order for Violating Natural Justice, Orders 20% Deposit and Account Unfreeze; Case to be Reheard The Patna High Court annulled an ex-parte assessment order by the Revenue Department against a petitioner for rejecting an Input Tax Credit claim and imposing a tax liability of INR 10,06,826/-. The court found the order violated natural justice principles by not providing a fair hearing or sufficient time for the petitioner to present their case. The court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the demand and ordered the respondent to unfreeze the petitioner's bank accounts. The case must be decided on merits within two months, ensuring compliance with natural justice, allowing further challenges if necessary. (AI Summary)

The Hon’ble Patna High Court in M/S. BALRAM SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 2023 (2) TMI 1086 - PATNA HIGH COURTquashed and set aside the ex-parte assessment order passed by the Revenue Department rejecting the Input Tax Credit (“ITC”) claim of the assessee and imposing the tax liability of INR 10,06,826/- , on the grounds that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without providing opportunity of hearing or sufficient time to the assessee to represent its case, which entails civil consequences. Held that, opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the assessee to place on record all essential documents and materials.

Facts:

This petition has been filed by M/s Balram Singh (“the Petitioner”) challenging the ex parte summary assessment orders dated February 16, 2020 and February 18, 2020 (“the Impugned Orders”) passed by the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) for the period October 2018 to March 2019 wherein, ITC claim of the Petitioner was rejected and tax amounting to INR 10,06,826/- including penalty/interest was imposed without providing any further notice to the Petitioner. Further, the Respondent seized INR 20,00,000/- from the cash credit ledger of the Petitioner by way of recovery against the total liability.

Issue:

Whether the Impugned Orders passed by the Respondent are in violation of principles of natural justice?

Held:

The Hon’ble Patna High Court in M/S. BALRAM SINGH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 2023 (2) TMI 1086 - PATNA HIGH COURTheld as under:

  • Opined that, the Impugned Order is bad in law on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, as no fair opportunity of hearing or sufficient time was not afforded to the Petitioner to represent its case and the Impugned Order being ex parte in nature, does not assign any sufficient reasons by the Respondent for determining the amount due and payable by the Petitioner.
  • Held that, the ex parte Impugned Order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences and opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the Petitioner to place on record all essential documents and materials.
  • Set aside the Impugned Orders with a direction to Petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of the demand raised, before the Respondent within four weeks. Further stated that, if it is ultimately found that the Petitioner’s deposit is in excess, the same shall be refunded within two months from the date of passing of the order.
  • Directed the Respondent, to de-freeze/ de-attach the bank account(s) of the Petitioner, if attached in reference to the proceedings and to decide the case on merits after complying with the principles of natural justice and not to take any coercive steps against the Petitioner during pendency of the case.
  • Further directed the Petitioner, to fully cooperate in proceedings and not to take unnecessary adjournment.
  • Further directed the Respondent to decide the case on merits within a period of two months and shall pass a speaking order, assigning reasons, which can be challenged by the Petitioner, if required and desired.

(Author can be reached at [email protected])

answers
Sort by
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
+ Add A New Reply
Hide
Recent Articles