High Court emphasizes separate assessment orders per year, remands case due to procedural non-compliance.

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging a single assessment order covering four assessment years, emphasizing the need for separate assessment orders for each year. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner due to procedural non-compliance, setting aside the assessment order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The court directed the respondent to issue separate pre-assessment notices for each year, allowing the petitioner to provide explanations and ensuring distinct adjudication and assessment orders for each assessment year. Procedural fairness and adherence to separate processes for each year were highlighted for a fair outcome.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to assessment order based on single order for multiple assessment years.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court addressed the challenge to an assessment order covering four assessment years due to a single pre-assessment notice and subsequent single order of assessment. The petitioner contended that separate assessment orders should have been passed for each year. The court emphasized the principle that each assessment year is a distinct proceeding, independent from others, with transactions varying between years. It was noted that a single inspection was conducted before the assessment order, starting from 2009. The court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to separate pre-assessment notices for each year, followed by an opportunity to respond and separate adjudication leading to distinct assessment orders.

The learned Additional Government Pleader argued that the petitioner had not maintained separate accounts for the four years in question. However, the court reiterated the importance of following due process for each assessment year, emphasizing the need for separate pre-assessment notices, responses, and adjudication. As the prescribed procedure had not been adhered to in this case, the court allowed the writ petition on technical grounds, setting aside the impugned assessment order and remanding the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration.

In the final ruling, the court directed the respondent to issue four separate pre-assessment notices for the four assessment years, granting the petitioner 15 days to submit explanations for each year. Following this, the respondent was instructed to conduct personal hearings and pass separate assessment orders for each year. The judgment highlighted the necessity of procedural fairness and adherence to distinct processes for each assessment year, ultimately ensuring a fair and just outcome for the petitioner.

---