Natural justice and reasoned order requirements vitiated tax demand where hearing was not properly intimated and reasons were absent.

Tax adjudication was vitiated where the notice and reminders did not fix the date, time, or venue of personal hearing, as this denied the assessee the meaningful opportunity required by the hearing provisions. The assessment order also failed because it was cryptic and unreasoned, recording only absence and demand confirmation without stating the relevant facts or basis of decision, contrary to the requirement of a speaking order. The demand was annulled and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication after due hearing and a reasoned determination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessment order could be sustained when the notice and reminders did not specify the date, time, and venue of personal hearing. (ii) Whether the impugned order, being unreasoned and cryptic, could stand in law.

Issue (i): Whether the assessment order could be sustained when the notice and reminders did not specify the date, time, and venue of personal hearing.

Analysis: The notice in Form DRC-01 and the subsequent reminders did not disclose any fixed date, time, or venue for hearing, and the record did not show that the petitioner was duly informed of a personal hearing before the adverse order was passed. In proceedings for determination of tax, the statutory scheme requires a meaningful opportunity of hearing and adherence to the requirements of section 75(4) and section 75(5), including proper intimation of hearing before adverse action is taken.

Conclusion: The order could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside for breach of the hearing requirement.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned order, being unreasoned and cryptic, could stand in law.

Analysis: The order merely recorded the petitioner's absence and confirmed the demand without setting out the relevant facts, basis, or independent reasons. Section 75(6) obliges the proper officer to state the relevant facts and the basis of the decision, and a non-speaking order cannot withstand judicial review where adverse civil consequences follow.

Conclusion: The impugned order was unsustainable for want of reasons and was rightly quashed.

Final Conclusion: The tax demand was annulled and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication after due opportunity of hearing and a reasoned determination.

Ratio Decidendi: In tax adjudication, where the statute requires an opportunity of hearing and a reasoned order, failure to intimate a proper hearing and failure to record the factual basis of the decision vitiate the order and justify remand.

---