Violation of natural justice in tax assessment requiring remand for fresh adjudication, subject to deposit of disputed tax within 30 days

Violation of natural justice was identified where the taxpayer's RPAD reply was not considered, requiring remand for fresh adjudication on merits; consequence: the matter is to be re-decided after considering the reply. The decision also emphasises that demands for separate tax periods cannot be clubbed, with that principle to guide re-adjudication. Limitation for appeals has expired, prompting a balancing measure: re-adjudication is subject to the taxpayer depositing the disputed tax within 30 days as a precondition to further exercise. Relief is procedural remediation rather than substantive alteration of liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned orders passed without considering the petitioners' reply dated 30.08.2022 require remittal for fresh adjudication; (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to conditional interim relief (vacation of bank attachment) subject to pre-deposit and filing of replies.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned orders passed without considering the petitioners' reply dated 30.08.2022 require remittal for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The petitions challenge that the reply dated 30.08.2022 was not considered in the impugned order dated 06.01.2025. The Court examined the omission and observed conflicting authority on clubbing of periods but proceeded on the concrete procedural defect of non-consideration of the petitioners' reply. In view of the omission, the matter requires reconsideration on merits by the concerned authority, with opportunity to consider the reply and any further submissions filed by the petitioners.

Conclusion: The impugned orders are remitted to the concerned authority for fresh adjudication after considering the petitioners' reply and any other reply filed.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners are entitled to conditional interim relief (vacation of bank attachment) subject to pre-deposit and filing of replies.

Analysis: To balance competing interests and because appeals against some impugned orders are time-barred, the Court conditioned relief on specified pre-deposits and compliance steps. The Court prescribed specific percentages of the disputed tax to be pre-deposited within 30 days and directed that upon such compliance and filing of replies the authority shall pass final orders expeditiously. The Court also directed that any bank attachment, if existing, shall stand vacated automatically upon compliance with the stipulated pre-deposit and filing requirements, and warned that failure to comply permits the authority to proceed as if the petitions were dismissed.

Conclusion: Conditional interim relief is granted in favour of the petitioners subject to pre-deposit of disputed tax (10% for W.P.No.33523/2025; 25% for W.P.Nos.33529/2025 and 33533/2025) and filing of replies; bank attachment, if any, shall be vacated upon compliance.

Final Conclusion: The matter is remitted for fresh adjudication to the concerned authority with directions to consider the petitioners' replies and to pass final orders on merits within a stipulated time frame, provided the petitioners comply with the conditional pre-deposit and filing requirements; consequential interim relief (vacation of bank attachment) is granted subject to such compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Failure to consider a materially filed reply before passing an adjudicatory order renders the order liable to remittal for fresh consideration, and courts may grant conditional interim relief (including vacation of attachments) subject to prescribed pre-deposits and compliance with filing requirements.

---