TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tax Authority's Penalty Order Invalidated Due to Procedural Irregularities and Lack of Fair Hearing for Taxpayer</h1> <h3>Hindustan Contruction Company Ltd. Versus Union of India & Ors.</h3> SC found the tax authority's order imposing interest and penalty was procedurally flawed. The order was passed without considering the petitioner's reply ... Liability towards interest and penalty - It is a specific plea of the petitioner that detailed reply to the show cause notice was furnished and a request was also made for personal hearing to the Officer before adjudication of the matter - denial of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that neither the reply of assessee was considered nor any opportunity of personal hearing was given. The Officer acted in a reckless illegal manner leading to unwarranted litigation being filed in the Court. Furthermore, we have serious reservations on the veracity of the dispatch register - Shri Hitesh Trivedi, Joint Commissioner, Circle Nimbahera is directed to personally remain present in the Court with the original record including the dispatch register on 15.12.2022 to show cause as to why cost should not be imposed upon him for nonperformance of duties enjoined upon him by law. List on 15.12.2022. Issues: Challenge to order imposing liability towards interest and penalty without considering reply or providing personal hearing.Analysis:The writ petition challenges an order passed by Joint Commissioner, Circle Nimbahera, imposing liability on the petitioner for interest and penalty without considering the detailed reply to the show cause notice or granting an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner had specifically requested a personal hearing before adjudication. The impugned order failed to take into account the petitioner's response or provide a chance for personal hearing, as noted by the Court.The respondent's counsel attempted to justify the order by providing additional reasons in the reply. However, the Court observed that the order itself did not reflect any consideration of the assessee's reply. The dispatch register indicated that a notice for personal hearing was sent to the petitioner's authorized representative, but the petitioner's counsel disputed the engagement of the representative for the subject proceedings. It was acknowledged that no notice for personal hearing was sent via email, raising doubts about the veracity of the dispatch register.Consequently, the Court concluded that the Joint Commissioner had acted recklessly and illegally, leading to unnecessary litigation. Expressing serious reservations about the accuracy of the dispatch register, the Court directed the Joint Commissioner to appear in person on a specified date with the original records, including the dispatch register, to explain why costs should not be imposed for failing to fulfill legal obligations.In summary, the Court found that the Joint Commissioner's actions were deficient and ordered a personal appearance to address the concerns raised, emphasizing the importance of following due process and considering the assessee's submissions before imposing liabilities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
