CHAKKUNNATH GOPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the form in which a virtual hearing is subscribed to is a matter of procedure, not substantive law. Procedure is meant to facilitate complete justice and cannot extinguish a substantive right if the person is otherwise eligible for it. The Court found that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard due to a procedural technicality. Consequently, the impugned order (Exhibit P5) was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner for availing the opportunity of a personal hearing. The Court directed the petitioner to opt for personal hearing in the prescribed form on this occasion. The writ petition was allowed with these directions.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Chakkunnath Gopi, filed a writ petition challenging an order (Exhibit P5) passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). This order was passed in an appeal against an assessment order dated 27.12.2018, made under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had opted for a virtual hearing in his appeal. A notice dated 19.02.2023 was issued for this virtual hearing. The petitioner requested a personal hearing and nominated an authorized representative. However, no link for the virtual hearing was generated, and the petitioner did not subscribe to the personal hearing through video conferencing in the prescribed form. The Department denied the virtual hearing on the ground that it was not in the prescribed form, despite the petitioner having provided the credentials of his authorized representative and their email ID.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the denial of virtual personal hearing to the petitioner, on the ground that it was not in the prescribed form, despite the petitioner having requested it and provided necessary details, is a valid ground for denial, thereby violating the petitioner's right to be heard? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the denial of virtual hearing was based on a procedural technicality (not using the prescribed form) and that procedure cannot override the substantive right to a personal hearing. The petitioner had made the request and provided the necessary credentials and email ID of the authorized representative. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the virtual hearing was denied because the petitioner did not subscribe to it in the prescribed form.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: “i)call for the records leading to issuance of Exhibit P5 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari: ii)Pending hearing and final disposal of the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant stay of all recovery proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1. iii)Issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
Heard Sri.Anil D. Nair, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri.Adithya Unnikrishnan and Sri.Chirstopher Abraham, learned Central Counsel for the Income Tax Department.
The present writ petition has been filed impugning Ext.P5 order passed by the 2nd respondent in an appeal instituted by the petitioner against the assessment order dated 27.12.2018 passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner was issued notice who opted for the virtual hearing in the appeal by notice dated 19.02.2023. The said notice has been placed on record by the standing counsel on behalf of the respondent by Ext.R1(a).
In pursuance to the said notice, the petitioner opted for personal hearing and also intimated the authorised person who will attend the virtual hearing through video conference. However, no link was generated for availing the said opportunity of virtual hearing to the petitioner and he had not subscribed to the personal hearing through video conferencing in the WP(C) NO. 4463 OF 2024 3 prescribed form.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner had made the request, also the credential of authorised representative along with his e-mail ID while intimating to the Department, but the virtual hearing has been denied only on the ground that it was not in the prescribed form.
The form in which the virtual hearing has to be subscribed is a matter of procedure and not a substantive law. The procedure is always handmade for doing the complete justice between the parties. Procedure cannot take away the substantive right of a person, if the person is otherwise eligible for substantive right of personal hearing. Considering this aspect, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. The present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioner for availing the opportunity of personal hearing and this time, the petitioner should not commit any mistake. He should opt for personal hearing in prescribed form. With the afore said direction, the present writ petition stands allowed. DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE rp
WP(C) NO. 4463 OF 2024 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
