Court emphasizes importance of communication in assessment proceedings, quashes order for violating natural justice principles

The court found that the respondent's failure to communicate the granted adjournment request resulted in a violation of natural justice principles. The assessment order passed without considering the adjournment and the petitioner's response to the show cause notice was quashed. The court directed the respondent to allow the petitioner two weeks to respond to the notice, emphasizing the importance of effective communication in faceless assessments to prevent procedural lapses. The court did not address the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing either party, restoring the matter to the stage of the adjournment request.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Non-response to adjournment request and principles of natural justice.
2. Faceless assessment procedure and communication issues.
3. Validity of the assessment order passed on 16/06/2021.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-response to Adjournment Request and Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the respondent failed to respond to their request for a 20-day adjournment made on 26/04/2021, which was necessary due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner claimed that the lack of response left them under the belief that a fresh notice would be issued for the next hearing date. The court found that the respondent did not communicate the adjournment granted until 10/05/2021, resulting in a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the petitioner was left "clueless on the next date of hearing," which necessitated judicial intervention to quash the assessment order.

2. Faceless Assessment Procedure and Communication Issues:
The faceless assessment procedure, aimed at transparency, requires the respondent authority to be vigilant in responding to requests online. The court noted that the order sheet maintained by the respondent showed the adjournment was granted but not communicated to the petitioner. This failure was attributed to either system limitations or operational issues. The court highlighted that the petitioner could not file a reply unless the portal was open, underscoring the need for effective communication in faceless assessments to prevent such procedural lapses.

3. Validity of the Assessment Order Passed on 16/06/2021:
The assessment order dated 16/06/2021 was challenged on the grounds that it was passed without considering the petitioner's adjournment request and without giving them an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. The respondent contended that they had waited beyond the requested 20 days, until 15/06/2021, before finalizing the assessment. However, the court found that the lack of communication about the adjournment date and the subsequent finalization of the assessment without the petitioner's response constituted a breach of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the assessment order and directed the respondent to grant the petitioner two weeks to respond to the show cause notice, ensuring due procedure is followed thereafter.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the assessment order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the respondent's failure to communicate the adjournment. The matter was restored to the stage at which the adjournment was requested, and the respondent was directed to provide a specific date for the petitioner to file a reply within two weeks, without further adjournments. The court did not delve into the merits of the case, ensuring that the disposal of the petition would not prejudice either party regarding the substantive issues.

---