TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The order issued under Section 25A of the Act for the year 2014-15 is also under challenge. Though highly belated in its challenge, petitioner claims to have been deprived of sufficient opportunity to contest the case. An extraordinary situation is alleged to have put those at the helm of affairs of the petitioner in a disadvantageous position, crippling their ability to contest the case. 2. Petitioner is a private limited company which had three Directors, of which the Managing Director was the person in charge, along with his wife. The third Director is alleged to be an employee, who acted as a silent Director and retired from the company on 12.03.2015. 3. Petitioner contends that the Managing Direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gs and showrooms. The South Indian Bank is alleged to have taken custody of the entire stock and machinery, including computers containing the books of account and other details. 6. Ext.P5 order of assessment for the year 2014-15 dated 16.05.2017, mentions that the dealer neither responded to the notices issued nor appeared for the personal hearing granted on 27.04.2017. Though the order further mentions about one relative of the Managing Director as having appeared on 15.05.2017 and produced a copy of export documents, in the absence of any written objections, and failure to produce relevant documents, the assessing officer, after refusing to grant further time to produce documents, proceeded to assess the petitioner. Thereafter, the orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nclusion showing a proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case vitiate the order itself. A reference to Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers, (2010 4 SCC 785) would suffice for the above proposition. 10. On an analysis of the facts of the instant case, this Court notices the availability of the above-mentioned twin ingredients. The orders of assessment apart from failing to give a reasonable opportunity of hearing had failed to consider any of the issues that arose and are seen to be non-speaking orders, issued without due application of mind. 11. While reverting to the facts of the case to appreciate the twin ingredients, Ext.P8 letter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be real and not ritualistic, effective and not illusory. In the instant case, I find that such an opportunity was not available to the petitioner for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. Even the request for three months time to produce the documents, requested as per Ext.P8, is seen refused, on the ground that already two months time had been granted. Application of mind to the request was glaringly absent. 13. In cases where decisions like assessment orders are issued, the right to a fair hearing is essential. The Managing Director of the petitioner and even his wife, who is claimed to be the only other Director both, fell into a disadvantaged category during the relevant period. The former was in prison, while the latter coul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t advances the cause of justice. The object of granting an opportunity for hearing is irrefutably to advance the cause of justice. In the circumstances pleaded and argued on behalf of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was not accorded to the petitioner. 16. While considering the concept of granting an opportunity for hearing, it also assumes significance, as mentioned earlier, that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if an opportunity of hearing is granted afresh to the petitioner, especially, since the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that, at present, the petitioner is in a position to contest the case on merits. 17. As regards the second ingredient, this Cou....