Procedural fairness in assessment proceedings led to quashing of the order, while fresh assessment remained permissible.

An assessment order passed without proper procedural regularity and fair hearing was quashed, because the record showed the matter was not duly taken up and the respondents acknowledged the default. The consequential demand notice was also set aside. However, the initiation of the assessment proceedings itself was not held defective, so the assessing authority was permitted to recommence the assessment in accordance with law after giving the petitioner due notice and a proper opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment order and the consequential demand notice were liable to be quashed for procedural illegality and denial of fair hearing, and whether the assessing authority could proceed afresh.

Analysis: The assessment proceeding was found to have suffered from a serious procedural lapse, with the record showing that the matter was not properly taken up on the relevant date and the impugned assessment was passed without the requisite procedural regularity. The respondents also acknowledged the default and the assessment order had been recalled. In these circumstances, the illegality in the proceeding was treated as established. At the same time, the initiation of the assessment proceedings themselves was not found defective, so the authority was permitted to recommence the assessment in accordance with law after giving the petitioner due opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The assessment order and the demand notice were quashed and set aside. The assessing authority was permitted to proceed afresh after due notice and hearing.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned assessment and demand were annulled, and the matter was left open for fresh assessment proceedings in compliance with law and fair hearing requirements.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment made in breach of procedural fairness and without due opportunity of hearing is liable to be quashed, though fresh proceedings may be initiated where the original assumption of jurisdiction is otherwise valid.

---