Court Quashes Garnishee Orders Due to Breach of Natural Justice

The court found the garnishee orders and demand notice were issued hastily, breaching natural justice principles. Orders were quashed, and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, emphasizing fair process and adequate response time. The court criticized unnecessary speed in passing orders and directed recording of remarks for officers' actions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the garnishee orders dated 07.03.2018 and 08.03.2018.
2. Validity of the demand notice dated 26.02.2018.
3. Breach of principles of natural justice.
4. Adequacy of time given to respond to the show cause notice.
5. Necessity of speed in passing orders and issuing garnishee orders.
6. Remand of the matter for fresh adjudication.
7. Recording of remarks in the confidential report of the concerned officers.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Garnishee Orders Dated 07.03.2018 and 08.03.2018:
The garnishee orders dated 07.03.2018 and 08.03.2018 were challenged on the grounds that they were issued in haste without providing reasonable time for the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. The court observed that the respondents had a specific target to recover the tax amount and acted in breach of law by not allowing adequate time for the petitioner to reply. The court emphasized that such speed was unnecessary and that the respondents should show similar urgency in their own work for recovery of tax in concluded matters.

2. Validity of the Demand Notice Dated 26.02.2018:
The demand notice dated 26.02.2018 was issued on the same day as the ex-parte order, without waiting for the appeal period. The court found that the ex-parte order was passed without giving the petitioner adequate opportunity to be heard, thus breaching the principles of natural justice. The court held that whenever there is a breach of principles of natural justice, a writ is tenable.

3. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:
The court cited several Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice. The principle of "audi alteram partem" (no one should be condemned unheard) was highlighted, stating that notice must be precise, unambiguous, and provide adequate time for the party to respond. The court concluded that the ex-parte order was passed without providing the petitioner an adequate opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

4. Adequacy of Time Given to Respond to the Show Cause Notice:
The show cause notice issued on 19.02.2018 gave the petitioner only three days to respond. The petitioner requested reasonable time to file a reply, but the respondents passed an ex-parte order on 26.02.2018 without considering the request. The court found that reasonable time should have been given to the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice.

5. Necessity of Speed in Passing Orders and Issuing Garnishee Orders:
The court criticized the respondents for acting in haste by passing the ex-parte order and issuing garnishee orders without waiting for the appeal period. It was noted that such speed was unnecessary in the given circumstances and that the respondents should show similar urgency in their own work for recovery of tax in concluded matters.

6. Remand of the Matter for Fresh Adjudication:
The court quashed and set aside the orders dated 26.02.2018, 07.03.2018, and 08.03.2018. The matter was remanded to respondent no. 2 with a direction to receive the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice within four weeks and adjudicate upon it after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

7. Recording of Remarks in the Confidential Report of the Concerned Officers:
The court directed the Commissioner of the Income Tax Department to record remarks in the confidential report of officers who issue show cause notices with only three days' time to reply, as this increases the court's workload.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication with directions to ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice. The court also emphasized the need for recording remarks in the confidential reports of officers who act in haste.

---