Court Dismisses Writ Petitions on Assessment Orders, Emphasizes Appeal Process The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging assessment orders for four assessment years, noting that the respondent had provided adequate ...
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.
Court Dismisses Writ Petitions on Assessment Orders, Emphasizes Appeal Process
The court dismissed the writ petitions challenging assessment orders for four assessment years, noting that the respondent had provided adequate opportunities for personal hearings as required by Section 75(4) of the Act. The court emphasized the availability of the appeal process under Section 107 of the Act for challenging assessment orders within 90 days and advised the petitioner to pursue the appeal route if desired.
Issues: Challenge to assessment orders for four assessment years due to lack of personal hearing as mandated under Section 75(4) of the Act.
Analysis: 1. The writ petitions challenge assessment orders for four assessment years (2017-18 to 2020-21) due to the absence of personal hearing, as required by Section 75(4) of the Act. The petitioner asserts that despite submitting documents and requesting a personal hearing, the orders were passed without granting the opportunity for a personal hearing.
2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was directed to file documents and given a specific date for personal hearing. Although the petitioner missed the initial date due to unavoidable reasons, they appeared the next day with detailed objections and a request for a personal hearing. The impugned orders were passed without providing the mandatory personal hearing, leading to the filing of the writ petitions.
3. The Government Advocate representing the respondent contended that multiple opportunities for personal hearings were provided to the petitioner, as evidenced by the assessment officer's findings. The petitioner failed to utilize these opportunities effectively, and the final hearing on 30.12.2020 was duly conducted before passing the impugned orders.
4. The court analyzed Section 75(4) of the Act, which mandates granting an opportunity of hearing upon a written request from the person chargeable with tax or penalty or in case of an adverse decision. The court noted that the petitioner was given multiple opportunities for personal hearing, with the final hearing on 30.12.2020 being utilized by the petitioner.
5. The petitioner argued for a minimum of three opportunities for personal hearings, citing the proviso to Sub Section 5 of Section 75. However, the court clarified that the provision only limits the number of adjournments to three times, not mandating a minimum of three hearings. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that a violation of Section 75(4) occurred due to insufficient opportunities for personal hearings.
6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the respondent had not violated the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) by providing adequate opportunities for personal hearings. The court highlighted the availability of the appeal process under Section 107 of the Act for challenging the assessment orders within 90 days, advising the petitioner to pursue the appeal route if desired.
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 
