Assessment order for 2016-2017 set aside; petitioner lacked proof of notice service. Remitted for reassessment.

The court set aside the assessment order for the assessment year 2016-2017 due to a lack of proof of notice service to the petitioner before the order was passed. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for reassessment, emphasizing the duty to prove notice service. Specific terms for the reassessment process were outlined, including the petitioner's response to the notice of proposal within two weeks, a personal hearing, and issuance of a fresh assessment order within six weeks. The court clarified that reassessment should be unbiased and in compliance with the law, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to assessment order for assessment year 2016-2017 based on violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the assessment order for the relevant assessment year, alleging a violation of natural justice principles due to the absence of any prior notice. The petitioner contended that no notice was issued before the impugned order was passed. The court directed the Government Pleader to verify this claim. The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged the issuance of a proposal notice and a personal hearing notice, but admitted the lack of proof of service of these notices. Consequently, the court considered the absence of proof of notice service and concluded that no notice was indeed served on the petitioner before the assessment order was passed.

The court emphasized the Assessing Officer's duty to prove the service of notices when challenged by the petitioner. Since the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence of notice service, the court decided to set aside the assessment order and remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reassessment. The court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the case's merits, leaving it to the Assessing Officer to reconsider and issue a fresh assessment order based on the petitioner's response to the notice of proposal.

In allowing the writ petition, the court outlined specific terms and conditions for the reassessment process. These included treating the impugned order as the notice of proposal, the petitioner's obligation to respond within two weeks with necessary documents, scheduling a personal hearing by the Assessing Officer, and issuing a fresh assessment order within six weeks after the hearing. The court made it clear that the reassessment should be conducted in accordance with the law, without indicating any bias towards either party. No costs were awarded, and the related miscellaneous petition was closed.

---