Rejection of appeal against assessment order on limitation and pre-deposit; remand with fresh hearing after additional 15% deposit.

Rejection of the appellate challenge for time limitation was addressed by remitting the matter for fresh adjudication because the respondent found the taxpayer's written reply prima facie inadequate; the authority failed to record a proper reasoned finding or offer a personal hearing when the reply was unintelligible, and the remand balances interests by requiring the taxpayer to deposit an additional 15% of the disputed tax in cash from electronic cash balance within thirty days, in addition to the earlier 10% pre-deposit, before the authority redoes the assessment exercise.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order and appellate rejection should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration; (ii) Whether the attachment of the bank account should be vacated subject to conditions including pre-deposit.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment order and the appellate order rejecting the appeal on limitation grounds should be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The Court examined the adequacy of the petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, the respondent's duty to record proper findings and, if necessary, call the petitioner for personal hearing, and the sequence of rectification and appeal proceedings. Balancing the interests of both sides, the Court found that the respondents should be directed to redo the exercise afresh on merits, subject to compliance by the petitioner with an additional pre-deposit requirement.

Conclusion: The Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration and re-adjudication on merits, subject to the petitioner making an additional pre-deposit. This conclusion is partly in favour of the Assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the bank account attachment should be lifted upon compliance with stipulated conditions including the additional pre-deposit.

Analysis: The Court considered the petitioner's prior pre-deposit and the effect of further deposit on ongoing recovery measures. The Court ordered that upon deposit of the stipulated additional amount and subject to verification that no other arrears exist, the attachment shall stand vacated and any amounts already recovered may be adjusted towards the pre-deposit.

Conclusion: The Court ordered vacation of the bank attachment conditional on the petitioner complying with the deposit and verification requirements. This conclusion is in favour of the Assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition is disposed by remitting the matter to the assessing authority for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the petitioner making the additional pre-deposit and complying with the stipulated conditions; overall the decision is partly in favour of the Assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessment and appellate order are challenged on adequacy of consideration and hearing, a court may remit the matter for fresh consideration on merits while protecting revenue recovery by conditioning relief on a specified pre-deposit and verification, and ordering suspension of recovery measures upon compliance.

---