TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court quashes assessment orders, stresses fair hearing</h1> <h3>Urbanclap Technologies India Pvt Ltd, Versus State Tax Officer, Chennai, Joint Commissioner (ST, Intelligence- II Chennai-, State Tax Officer, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk Chennai</h3> The Madras High Court, under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, set aside three assessment orders due to a violation of natural justice ... Violation of the principles of natural justice - Validity of assessment order - CGST Act - periods 2017-18 to 2019-20 - HELD THAT:- The Assessing Officer, in all fairness, should wait till the end of the working day when personal hearing was fixed, before finalizing the assessment. Finalization of assessment on the same day when the matter was listed for hearing would militate against the requirement of natural justice. Let notice be issued afresh to the petitioner to enable them to appear and make its submissions and let orders be passed within a period of eight (8) weeks from date of first hearing, in accordance with law. Petition disposed off. Issues: Challenge to three assessment orders under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the periods 2017-18 to 2019-20; Violation of principles of natural justice regarding personal hearing notice and same-day assessment.The judgment delivered by Honorable Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth of the Madras High Court pertains to the challenge against three assessment orders dated 14.02.2020 under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 for the periods 2017-18 to 2019-20. The main contention raised was the violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the lack of an effective opportunity for the petitioner during the assessment process. The learned Special Government Pleader acknowledged that the personal hearing notice issued on 13.02.2020 for a hearing on 14.02.2020 did not provide sufficient time for the petitioner to prepare and present their case adequately.In the judgment, reference was made to a decision by a learned Single Judge of the Court highlighting the importance of allowing sufficient time for parties to present their objections during assessments. The Judge emphasized the need for a realistic and effective opportunity for individuals to state their case, rather than a notional or impractical timeframe. It was noted that fixing a specific hour of a day as a deadline for submissions could be detrimental to the principles of natural justice, especially when the assessing authority finalizes the assessment on the same day as the hearing.Based on the discussion and legal principles outlined, the Court set aside the impugned assessment orders and directed that a fresh notice be issued to the petitioner to enable them to appear and present their submissions. The Court mandated that any subsequent orders should be passed within eight weeks from the date of the first hearing, ensuring compliance with the law. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without imposing any costs on either party.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
