THE GROB TEA COMPANY LIMITED vs. ASSISTANT /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS

PDF · subscribers
WPA/23141/2022HC CalcuttaWBCHCA046434202228 November 2022Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, and without delving into the merits of the impugned order, set aside the order solely on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, which is a fundamental requirement. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representatives. This fresh order is to be passed within eight weeks from the date of communication of the Tribunal's order. No other issues were decided, and no specific findings were made on the merits of the assessment.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Grob Tea Company Limited, has filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated July 28, 2022, and a subsequent notice. The challenge is based on the ground that the principle of natural justice was violated because the petitioner was not provided an opportunity of hearing, despite specifically requesting it. The Assessing Officer and other revenue authorities are the respondents. The assessment year(s) are not specified in the judgment. The amount in dispute is not mentioned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principle of natural justice by not providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the principle of natural justice was violated as it was denied an opportunity of hearing, despite specifically requesting it. The petitioner relied on the principle that a fair hearing is a fundamental aspect of administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue's side regarding the violation of natural justice or the merits of the order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

WPA 23141 OF 2022 28.11.2022

Sl no. 22

The Grob Tea Company Limited. Ct no. 2

- Vs - P.M.

Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Income

Tax, Circle 4(1) & Ors.

Mr. Avra Mazumder,

Ms. Megha Agarwal,

Mr. Binayak Gupta

… for the petitioner. Mr. Om Narayan Rai

… for the State.

Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 28th July, 2022 and subsequent notice on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice by not providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in spite of specifically asking by it. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and even without going into the merits of the aforesaid impugned order, only on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice the aforesaid impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer concerned to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law

2 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorized representatives within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. With this observation and direction this writ petition being WPA 23141 of 2022 is disposed of.

(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →