TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1257
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondents. 2. We issue Rule in both these petitions. With the consent of and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties, we make the Rule returnable forthwith. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties agree that both these petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order since the issues of law and fact are common. The Counsel point out that Writ Petition No.994 of 2022(F) pertains to the Assessment Year 2017-18 and Writ Petition No.995 of 2022(F) pertains to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 4. The petitioners question the impugned order dated 30/03/2022 made by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi assessing the petitioners' income for the relevant Assessment Year by invoking the provisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Arlekar submits that since this amounts to a violation of principles of natural justice and fair play, the impugned orders may be set aside and the respondents can always be directed to proceed with the matter after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. 8. Mr. K.V. Arvind, learned Senior Standing Counsel points out that the petitioners, despite several opportunities failed to file their returns for the relevant Assessment Year. He points out that even after the Show Cause Notice was issued, no returns were filed by the petitioners. He submits that in such circumstances, there was no obligation to even grant an opportunity of an oral hearing. He submits that such opportunity was granted as a matter of abund....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tact professionals to appear at the personal hearing. The petitioners did manage to file an additional response on 28/03/2022. Mr. Arlekar also points out that the impugned order is really had no reference to most of the contentions raised by and on behalf of the petitioners. Record also bears out that the entire proceedings u/s. 144 were commenced and included within a short span of 11 days. 12. In C.B. Gautam v/s. Union of India and others [(1993) 1 SCC 78] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even though it was not statutorily required, yet the authority was liable to give notice to the affected parties while purchasing their properties under Section 269-UD of the Act, namely, the compulsory purchase of the property. It was observe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and C.B. Gautam (supra). Later on this principle was applied to other quasi-judicial and other tribunals and it is now clearly laid down that even in these actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary. 14. Show Cause Notices were issued on 19/02/2022 and the final impugned orders were made on 30/03/2022. There is some merit in the petitioners' contentions about the failure of natural justice in the peculiar facts of the present case. 15. Therefore, without going into the merits and by focusing on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case like the shortness of the notice coupled with the fact that the petitioners are a Government Compa....