Assessment order set aside regarding disputed security wages for lack of personal hearing; matter remanded for fresh consideration.

HC set aside the impugned assessment order dated 30.08.2024 only insofar as disputed security wages, finding failure to afford a personal hearing on that issue and that the show cause notice did not raise security wages separately. The matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration of security wages. The petitioner is granted liberty to appeal other aspects of the order, but the HC cautioned against piecemeal appeals. The petition is disposed by remand.

---

---

The issues presented and considered in the judgment are as follows:1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent, specifically regarding "security wages," was valid.2. Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to explain their case on the aspect of "Security Wages" before the passing of the impugned order.3. Whether the respondents were justified in disputing the "Security Wages" without providing a personal hearing to the petitioner.Issue-wise detailed analysis:The relevant legal framework and precedents were based on principles of natural justice, which require that parties be given a fair opportunity to present their case before any adverse decision is made against them. The Court interpreted the petitioner's claim that the impugned order exceeded the scope of the show cause notice issued by the 2nd respondent, specifically focusing on the aspect of "Security Wages."Key evidence and findings included the petitioner's submission that the issue of "Security Wages" was not raised prior to the impugned order and that they were not given an opportunity to explain this aspect. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that "Security Wages" fell under "Administration Expenses" as mentioned in the show cause notice.The Court reasoned that the sudden raising of the issue of "Security Wages" without prior notice or opportunity for the petitioner to respond violated principles of natural justice. The Court concluded that the impugned order was flawed in this regard and decided to set it aside only to the extent of "Security Wages."Significant holdings:The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.08.2024 was set aside and remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration specifically on the aspect of "Security Wages." The petitioner was granted the opportunity to file their reply/objection with required documents within two weeks. The 1st respondent was directed to issue a clear notice for a personal hearing and pass appropriate orders within two weeks after the hearing. The petitioner was also given 30 days to file an appeal against the impugned order, including the aspect of "Security Wages."In conclusion, the Court intervened due to the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to address the issue of "Security Wages" before the impugned order was passed. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing parties with a fair chance to present their case before any adverse decisions are made.

---