Court sets aside assessment order, grants fresh hearing opportunity, emphasizes procedural fairness.

The Court allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the assessment order and remitting the matter for fresh consideration with a personal hearing opportunity. The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the tax amount by a specified date. Failure to comply would result in restoration of the original order. The judgment underscored procedural fairness and the right to be heard, emphasizing the importance of allowing parties to present their case before decisions are made.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order, Lack of opportunity for petitioner, Consideration of personal hearing, Remittance of tax amount, Fresh consideration by authority

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 30.01.2015 for multiple financial years, alleging lack of opportunity and non-consideration of objections regarding reversal of credit amount. The petitioner, engaged in the sale and distribution of Electrical and Electronic Appliances, sought to quash the order on grounds of procedural fairness. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 10% of the tax amount and requested an opportunity to present their case.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel highlighted the absence of a show cause notice or reason for the reversal of credit in the assessment order. The respondent's counsel requested an adjournment to verify if a personal hearing was granted, presenting the visitors book as evidence of the petitioner's appearance and submission on a specific date.

After hearing arguments from both sides and examining the available documents, the Court determined that the visitors book was not sufficient evidence of a personal hearing. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the tax amount by a specified date and scheduled a personal hearing for the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the authority for a fresh consideration with an opportunity for personal hearing.

The Court allowed the writ petitions, closed the connected miscellaneous petitions without costs, and outlined that failure to remit the agreed 10% tax amount within the specified period would result in the restoration of the original order, empowering the respondent to take appropriate legal action. This judgment emphasized procedural fairness, the right to be heard, and the importance of affording parties the opportunity to present their case before making a decision.

---