High Court quashes assessment order citing COVID delays, directs deposit for appeal hearing.

The High Court quashed the assessment order and demand notice due to delays caused by COVID restrictions. It found the ex parte order lacking in reasoning and violating natural justice principles. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a percentage of the total amount for appeal hearing, de-freeze bank accounts, and set guidelines for further proceedings emphasizing compliance with natural justice principles. Additionally, the Court declared certain statutory provisions ultra vires, highlighting violations of natural justice and lack of reasoning in ex parte orders, setting aside the impugned order, and outlining conditions for future proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of assessment order and demand notice
2. Declaration of statutory provisions as ultra vires
3. Delay in statutory remedy due to COVID restrictions
4. Violation of principles of natural justice in ex parte orders

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought relief for quashing an order-in-appeal, assessment order, and demand notice related to tax levied for a specific period. The High Court noted the delay in statutory remedy due to COVID restrictions. The Court observed that the order was ex parte in nature and lacked sufficient reasoning, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the petitioner to deposit a percentage of the total amount for appeal hearing, with additional deposit conditions. The Court also ordered the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts and set guidelines for further proceedings, emphasizing compliance with natural justice principles and refraining from coercive actions during the case's pendency.

2. The petitioner also sought a declaration that certain statutory provisions were ultra vires the Constitution. The Court, despite recognizing the statutory remedy, asserted its authority to intervene when an order is deemed legally flawed. The Court highlighted violations of natural justice and lack of reasoning in the ex parte orders. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and outlined specific conditions for further proceedings, emphasizing compliance with natural justice principles and refraining from coercive actions during the case's pendency.

3. The Court addressed the delay in statutory remedy due to COVID restrictions, acknowledging the petitioner's explanation for the delay. The Court considered the impact of the pandemic on the proceedings and decided to intervene despite the availability of statutory remedies. This intervention was based on the Court's assessment of legal flaws in the ex parte orders, including violations of natural justice principles and lack of reasoning. The Court quashed the impugned order, directed deposit requirements for appeal hearing, and set guidelines for further proceedings to ensure compliance with natural justice principles.

4. The Court highlighted the violation of principles of natural justice in ex parte orders as a significant issue. The Court emphasized the importance of fair opportunity of hearing and sufficient time for representation in legal proceedings. Noting the civil consequences of ex parte orders passed without adherence to natural justice principles, the Court quashed the impugned order and set conditions for further proceedings to ensure compliance with natural justice principles and fair representation for all parties involved. The Court also directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts and specified guidelines for the Assessing Authority to follow in deciding the case on merits.

---