Order Overturned: Case Remanded for Reconsideration Due to Breach of Natural Justice; Dealer to Pay 10% Tax for Show Cause. The HC set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2023, citing breach of natural justice, and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The petitioner, a ...
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.
Order Overturned: Case Remanded for Reconsideration Due to Breach of Natural Justice; Dealer to Pay 10% Tax for Show Cause.
The HC set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2023, citing breach of natural justice, and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The petitioner, a dealer, must remit 10% of the disputed tax demand and respond to the show cause notice within two months. The respondent is instructed to provide a personal hearing and issue a fresh order within two months. The case was disposed of with no order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Issues: Challenge on grounds of breach of natural justice in an order dated 28.12.2023.
In this case, the petitioner, a dealer of marbles, granites, and related materials, challenged an order issued on 28.12.2023, alleging a breach of natural justice. The petitioner received an audit report on 23.09.2023, followed by a show cause notice on 27.09.2023, which the petitioner did not respond to, claiming that their appointed auditor failed to inform them about the proceedings. The impugned order was issued without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner, through their counsel, requested an opportunity to be heard and agreed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand.
The Additional Government Pleader representing the respondent argued that the petitioner had multiple opportunities to respond to the audit observations and show cause notice. The court found that the petitioner's non-participation in the proceedings leading to the impugned order was due to negligence in responding to notices. Since the petitioner did not contest the tax demand on its merits, the court deemed it appropriate to provide the petitioner with an opportunity to do so by imposing certain conditions.
As a result, the court set aside the impugned order dated 28.12.2023 and remanded the matter to the respondent for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within two months and submit a reply to the show cause notice within the same period. Upon receipt of the petitioner's reply and satisfaction of the remittance condition, the respondent was instructed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity, including a personal hearing, and issue a fresh order within two months.
The court disposed of the case with the mentioned terms, with no order as to costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.
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 
