Quasi-judicial tax assessment must consider objections with reasons and afford personal hearing before finalisation.

In quasi-judicial tax assessment, objections to a pre-assessment notice must be independently considered on their merits, with reasons showing application of mind; a mere reproduction of the objections or a stock rejection is insufficient. Where the notice fixes a hearing or the assessee requests one, the authority must afford a personal hearing before completing the assessment, even if belated objections are accepted. The existence of an appellate remedy does not cure the defect caused by failure to consider objections and grant hearing. The assessment was therefore liable to be set aside and redone after due consideration and hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order was vitiated for non-consideration of the objections filed against the pre-assessment notice; (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to a personal hearing before finalisation of the assessment notwithstanding the availability of an appellate remedy.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment order was vitiated for non-consideration of the objections filed against the pre-assessment notice.

Analysis: The assessment order reproduced the objections but did not any real consideration of their merits or any reasons for rejecting them. In a quasi-judicial assessment, the authority must show application of mind and must deal with the objections in a reasoned manner; a stock observation that no valid ground was made out is not a substitute for decision-making on the merits.

Conclusion: Yes. The assessment was vitiated for non-consideration of the objections.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to a personal hearing before finalisation of the assessment notwithstanding the availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The pre-assessment notice was a composite notice fixing a date for personal hearing, and the objections themselves contained a request for hearing. Once the authority accepted the belated objections, it was obliged to afford a hearing before completing the assessment. The existence of an appellate remedy did not cure the defect, because the appellate authority could not properly validate an order passed without due consideration of objections and hearing.

Conclusion: Yes. The assessee was entitled to a personal hearing before finalisation of the assessment.

Final Conclusion: The assessment order could not stand and was required to be set aside, with a fresh assessment to be made after considering the objections and granting a personal hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: In a quasi-judicial tax assessment, objections to a pre-assessment notice must be independently considered with reasons, and where the statute contemplates or the notice fixes personal hearing, the assessee must be afforded that hearing before finalisation of the assessment.

---