Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

Order set aside for denial of fair hearing where hearing officer differed from decision-maker; fresh hearing required by decision-maker

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The HC held that the impugned adjudicative order violated the principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, because the officer who conducted the personal hearing did not render the decision; a successor officer decided the matter without affording a fresh hearing. Reliance on administrative guidance requiring prompt issuance of orders following personal hearings reinforced that divided responsibility between hearing and decision-making undermines fairness. Consequently, the HC quashed the impugned order as vitiated for denial of a fair hearing and allowed the petition, directing that any fresh decision be taken by the officer who affords the hearing or, if by a successor, only after providing the petitioner a fresh opportunity of personal hearing.....