Faceless Tax Assessment: Court Upholds Dismissal, Stresses Procedural Compliance and Available Appellate Remedies.

The HC dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing procedural adherence under the faceless assessment scheme of the Income Tax Act, which requires a request for an oral hearing. The Court highlighted the discretionary nature of its jurisdiction under Article 226, noting that interference is warranted only for breaches of natural justice, fundamental rights, or jurisdictional issues. The petitioner failed to request an oral hearing, constituting a waiver, and was advised to pursue appellate remedies. The judgment clarified that the period during the petition filing until judgment would not count as a delay, underscoring the importance of procedural compliance and available alternative remedies.

---

---

Issues:
1. Assessment order passed without affording an opportunity of hearing.
2. Interpretation of provisions regarding oral hearing under the Wealth Tax Act and the Income Tax Act.
3. Applicability of faceless assessment procedures under the Income Tax Act.
4. Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution regarding alternate remedies and principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an assessment order passed without a hearing. The petitioner sought a remand for a proper hearing, citing a Full Bench decision interpreting Section 18(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, emphasizing the requirement of an oral hearing. The Full Bench clarified that "heard" means to be heard "orally," and there is an implied obligation to offer an oral hearing under the Wealth Tax Act, even without a request. However, the Court noted the provision under Section 144B(vii) of the Income Tax Act post faceless assessment, which mandates a request for an oral hearing. The Court concluded that under the faceless assessment scheme, an oral hearing must be requested, and without such a request, the assessment would proceed without one, aligning with the Act's provisions.

The Court considered the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with appellable orders, citing precedents emphasizing the discretionary nature of writ remedies. It was highlighted that the High Court can refuse to exercise discretion if an adequate alternative remedy exists. The Court clarified that interference is warranted only in cases of breach of natural justice principles, fundamental rights infringement, lack of jurisdiction, or when challenging an Act's vires. The Court noted that the failure to request an oral hearing amounted to a waiver, and the petitioner was reserved the liberty to approach the appellate authority.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the period during the petition filing till the judgment would not be considered a delay. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the availability of appellate remedies, while also outlining the discretionary nature of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

---