Court sets aside order for lack of natural justice, grants petitioner time to reply. Failure may revive order.

The court set aside the order dated 29.03.2022 due to a violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file a reply, with the officer deciding on issuing a notice under Section 148 based on the reply. Failure to respond within the stipulated time would result in the impugned order being revived unilaterally. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to establish the jurisdictional challenge separately before the authorities. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and jurisdictional challenge under Section 149(1)(b).

Analysis:

1. Challenge to Order under Section 148A(d):
The writ petition challenges an order dated 29.03.2022 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that the order was passed without considering their request for adjournment made on 28.03.2022. The petitioner had requested 15 days to respond to a show cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) dated 20.03.2022. However, the officer did not address this request in the order dated 29.03.2022. The court held that the authority should have either accepted the request and granted the time sought or informed the petitioner of the rejection. Since neither was done, the impugned order was deemed vitiated due to a violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Jurisdictional Challenge under Section 149(1)(b):
The petitioner also challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the authorities, contending that the precondition under Section 149(1)(b) was not satisfied. The court noted that this is a question of fact that the petitioner needs to establish before the authorities, and the court refrained from further comment on this issue. The court emphasized that the petitioner must address this challenge before the authorities, indicating that it is a separate matter from the violation of natural justice in the impugned order.

3. Court's Decision and Directions:
In view of the violation of principles of natural justice, the court set aside the order dated 29.03.2022. The petitioner was granted two weeks from the receipt of the court's order to file a reply, with the portal being enabled for this purpose. Upon receiving the reply, the officer would decide, based on the materials available including the reply, whether to issue a notice under Section 148. The court clarified that if no response was filed within the stipulated time, the impugned order would stand revived unilaterally, with all consequences flowing from it. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.

---