Natural justice in tax assessment fails where notice opportunities were given, while discharged-liability claims need factual scrutiny in appeal.

Repeated opportunities to respond to pre-assessment notices and a communicated limit on further extension were treated as sufficient compliance with natural justice, so the challenge to the assessment on that ground failed. The claim that the entire tax liability had already been discharged by the contractor was treated as a disputed question of fact requiring verification of the contract scope, value and respective liabilities, and was therefore not decided in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy for determination of the surviving issues, including any question of pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment orders were vitiated for breach of natural justice on account of alleged failure to communicate refusal of further time and denial of reasonable opportunity; (ii) whether the writ petitions could succeed on the contention that the tax liability had already been fully discharged by the contractor and no liability survived in the petitioner's hands.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment orders were vitiated for breach of natural justice on account of alleged failure to communicate refusal of further time and denial of reasonable opportunity.

Analysis: The record showed repeated opportunities granted to respond to the pre-assessment notices, repeated requests by the petitioner for extension of time, and an endorsement by the assessing officer limiting the last extension to a specific date. The requirement in the departmental circular was thus treated as satisfied, because the petitioner had been informed that the request for time was not open-ended. In addition, the petitioner had not effectively responded to the notices despite the opportunities granted.

Conclusion: The challenge based on violation of natural justice failed and there was no procedural infirmity in the assessment process.

Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions could succeed on the contention that the tax liability had already been fully discharged by the contractor and no liability survived in the petitioner's hands.

Analysis: The question whether the entire contract value had already been taxed in the contractor's hands was treated as one of fact requiring examination of the scope of work, the contract value and the respective liabilities of the parties. The materials placed were found insufficient to conclude that the whole liability had been discharged by the contractor. The Court also noted that part of the work, including the petitioner's own offices, restaurant and amenities, appeared to remain attributable to the petitioner, making the issue unsuitable for writ adjudication.

Conclusion: The contention that no liability survived in the petitioner's hands was not accepted in writ jurisdiction and was left for determination in statutory appeal.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were not entertained on merits and the petitioner was relegated to the appellate remedy for adjudication of the surviving factual and legal questions, including any issue relating to pre-deposit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where adequate opportunities are granted and communicated, a writ challenge to assessment on natural justice grounds will fail, and a disputed question whether tax liability has already been discharged by another person is not ordinarily fit for decision in writ jurisdiction when it depends on factual verification.

---