Court remands assessment orders for fresh consideration, stresses personal hearing importance.

The court remanded the matter for fresh consideration due to the failure to provide a personal hearing before passing revised assessment orders. The impugned orders were set aside, and the case was sent back to the respondent for reevaluation, emphasizing the necessity of a personal hearing even if objections were not submitted. The court directed the respondent to reconsider the matter in accordance with previous judgments, outlining the procedure for assessing officers in cases of discrepancies and requiring the petitioner's cooperation within specified timelines. All writ petitions were allowed without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging revised assessment orders without personal hearing opportunity.

Analysis:
The writ petitions challenged revised assessment orders issued by the respondent without providing the petitioner with an opportunity for personal hearing. The petitioner, a dealer in Two Wheeler spare parts, filed timely returns for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16. However, discrepancies were found in the tax returns based on inspection and web reports. The respondent issued pre-revision notices on 29.05.2017, but due to the proprietor's ill health, the petitioner could not respond immediately. The impugned orders were passed without granting a personal hearing, leading to the petitions before the court.

The respondent contended that show cause notices were issued to the petitioner on 29.05.2017, but the petitioner did not respond, prompting the respondent to proceed with the matter and pass the impugned orders on 28.03.2018. The court noted that while the petitioner did not respond to the pre-revision notices, authorities are obligated to schedule a personal hearing as per circulars. The court cited a previous decision emphasizing that failure to submit objections does not justify denying the right to a personal hearing.

Based on the failure to provide a personal hearing, the court decided to remand the matter for fresh consideration. The impugned orders were set aside, and the case was sent back to the respondent for reevaluation. The court also highlighted that the impugned orders were based on discrepancies between buyer and seller particulars. Referring to a previous judgment, the court outlined the procedure for assessing officers in cases of mismatch, emphasizing the need for proper enquiry and communication with dealers.

The court directed the respondent to reconsider the matter in light of the previous judgment, requiring the petitioner to respond within two weeks and attend a hearing within a further two weeks. The respondent was instructed to issue a reasoned order within four weeks after the hearing. The court emphasized that non-cooperation from the petitioner during the enquiry could lead to appropriate orders being passed. Finally, all writ petitions were allowed without costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---