TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to a direction for hearing, supply of the complainant's reply and consideration of their preliminary objections in the pending adjudication proceedings.
Analysis: The petition arose under Article 226 in relation to pending adjudication under the procedural regulations governing the authority. In view of the appointment of additional members to the adjudicating authority and the statement placed before the Court, the proceedings were not quashed on merits. Instead, the Court directed the authority to give the petitioners an opportunity of being heard, to follow the Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013, to consider the prayers raised in the petition, and to furnish a copy of the complainant's reply. The Court also clarified that no opinion was expressed on the other issues pending before the adjudicating authority.
Conclusion: The petitioners succeeded only to the extent of obtaining procedural directions ensuring hearing, disclosure of the complainant's reply, and consideration of their preliminary objections; the substantive adjudication was left open to be decided in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The matter was concluded with directions safeguarding procedural fairness in the adjudication, while leaving the remaining issues to be decided by the authority on their own merits.
Ratio Decidendi: In pending adjudicatory proceedings, the authority must comply with the prescribed procedure and afford a fair opportunity of hearing, including supply of the opposing reply where required by the governing regulations.
TaxTMI 
