Assessment Order for 2017-18 Set Aside for Violation of Natural Justice The court set aside the Assessment Order for the year 2017-18 due to a violation of natural justice principles. It was found that the notice granting time ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Assessment Order for 2017-18 Set Aside for Violation of Natural Justice
The court set aside the Assessment Order for the year 2017-18 due to a violation of natural justice principles. It was found that the notice granting time for objections was served late, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to respond adequately. The court directed a fresh assessment process, emphasizing the importance of granting sufficient time for the petitioner to be heard and correcting errors in the returns. The writ petition was allowed, and detailed instructions were provided for the reassessment proceedings.
Issues: Challenge to Assessment Order for the year 2017-18, Violation of principles of natural justice
In this judgment, the petitioner challenged the Ext.P7 Assessment Order issued by the 1st respondent for the year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the notice granting him 15 days to file objections was served late, and the Assessment Order was passed within 5 days thereafter, leading to a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the Government Pleader argued that the petitioner had been evading service of notice repeatedly. The court examined the contentions and found that the notice indeed provided for 15 days to file objections, and since it was served late, the petitioner should have been granted the stipulated time even if he had evaded the notice. The court held that passing an order without complying with the stipulated time in the notice amounted to a violation of natural justice. Considering the circumstances, the court concluded that setting aside Ext.P7 would not cause prejudice to the revenue, as a fresh order of assessment could be passed after granting a sufficient opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the court set aside Ext.P7 and directed the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders of assessment after hearing the petitioner in accordance with the law. The petitioner was instructed to appear for a hearing on a specified date, and the Assessing Officer was directed to consider the petitioner's request to correct the TIN in the returns and pass orders accordingly. Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, and the court provided detailed directions for the assessment process moving forward.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
