TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessment order was liable to be interfered with on the ground of violation of natural justice for alleged non-service of notice and denial of opportunity of hearing.
Analysis: The petitioner challenged the assessment primarily on the plea that the notice and hearing intimations were sent to the e-mail address and mobile number of the accountant and that no effective opportunity was granted before finalisation of the assessment. The Court noted that notice was communicated in the manner contemplated by Section 169 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, through the registered e-mail and mobile number furnished at registration. It was further noted that the petitioner did not dispute receipt of such communications in the sense of the registered contact details having been used, and that the assessee had chosen those contact details at the time of registration. The Court also held that a breach of natural justice is not automatic and that interference requires a showing of actual prejudice. As the petitioner neither replied to the notices nor appeared on the dates fixed, and no prejudice was demonstrated, the mere fact that the order was passed on a later date did not justify interference.
Conclusion: The alleged violation of natural justice was not made out and the assessment order was not liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on merits and the assessment order was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A party complaining of denial of natural justice must show both improper denial of opportunity and resulting prejudice; where notice is sent to the registered e-mail and mobile number furnished by the assessee and no participation or prejudice is shown, the assessment will not be interfered with.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
