Natural justice in reassessment: refusal of time to file documents justified writ interference and remand for fresh consideration.

Denial of a reasonable opportunity to produce supporting documents in reassessment can amount to breach of natural justice and render the assessment and demand vulnerable to writ interference. The assessee had sought time to place material on other-State turnover, non-vatable revenue, e-Sugam particulars and export sales, but the request was refused on limitation grounds despite a longer statutory period for completion of assessment. The Court held that this resulted in a high-pitched assessment, quashed the reassessment order and demand notice, and remitted the matter for de novo consideration after granting a fair hearing. Availability of an alternate statutory remedy did not bar writ jurisdiction because the challenge was to procedural unfairness in the reassessment process.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the reassessment order and consequential demand notice were liable to be interfered with for breach of natural justice in refusing further time to produce documents, and (ii) whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Issue (i): whether the reassessment order and consequential demand notice were liable to be interfered with for breach of natural justice in refusing further time to produce documents.

Analysis: The assessee had responded to the proposition notice and sought additional time to produce supporting material, including records relating to other-State turnover, non-vatable revenue, e-Sugam particulars and export sales. The request for time was declined on the ground that the matter was time-barred, although the statutory framework contemplated a longer period for completion of assessment. In these circumstances, denial of a reasonable opportunity to substantiate the claim resulted in a high-pitched assessment and offended the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The reassessment order and demand notice were liable to be set aside and the matter was required to be remitted for fresh consideration after granting reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The existence of an alternate remedy did not preclude interference where the challenge was founded on denial of a fair hearing and procedural unfairness. The facts justified exercise of writ jurisdiction because the grievance went to the manner in which the reassessment was concluded, rather than a mere dispute on merits requiring fuller factual adjudication.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and interference was warranted notwithstanding the alternate remedy.

Final Conclusion: The assessment was quashed and the proceedings were restored to the assessing authority for de novo reassessment after affording a further opportunity of hearing and production of documents, with the relief being conditional on additional deposit by the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where reassessment is concluded without granting a reasonable opportunity to produce material necessary to support the assessee's objections, the resulting order is vulnerable to interference in writ jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy.

---