ALHIND TRAVEL PORTAL LLP vs. ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/20172/2021HC KeralaKLHC01052347202109 August 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS5 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Kerala, in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, set aside Ext.P7 order and Annexure A show cause notice. The Court noted the respondent's concession that no personal hearing was granted. The Court directed the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard through video conferencing, as requested in Ext.P3(a). The respondent was further directed to send a notice via e-mail and the online portal to fix the hearing date and to finalize the proceedings expeditiously after hearing the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that failure to grant a requested personal hearing, especially when it is a statutory or procedural right, violates natural justice and warrants setting aside the order.

What were the facts?

M/s Alhindi Travel Portal LLP (the petitioner/assessee) filed a writ petition challenging Ext.P7 order passed by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer (the respondent/revenue). The petitioner, an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961, had filed its return for assessment year 2018-19. The respondent issued various notices, including Ext.P1, seeking information. The petitioner responded with Ext.P1(a) and subsequently requested a personal hearing via video conferencing, as per Ext.P3(a). However, the respondent proceeded to pass Ext.P7 assessment order without granting this requested hearing, which the petitioner contended violated principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order (Ext.P7) passed by the respondent is liable to be set aside for violating the principles of natural justice, specifically by failing to grant the petitioner a personal hearing as requested (under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)? Assessee's contention: The petitioner argued that Ext.P7 order was passed in violation of rudimentary principles of natural justice because the respondent failed to grant the requested personal hearing through video conferencing, despite the petitioner's request in Ext.P3(a). Revenue's contention: The respondent conceded in their statement that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner as requested. They had no objection to Ext.P7 order being set aside and the matter being considered afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Article 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS WEDNE AY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 18TH SRAVANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 20172 OF 2021 PETITIONER: M/S ALHIND TRAVEL PORTAL LLP 1ST FLOOR, ALHIND TOWER, OPP PLANETARIUM, JAFFER KHAN COLONY ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY P.V.VALSARAJ, MANAGING PARTNER BY ADVS.HARISANKAR V. MENON MEERA V.MENON RESPONDENT: ADDL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL- E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, DELHI-110 001 BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) NO. 20172 OF 2021 JUDGMENT Dated this the 9th day of August 2023 The writ petition is filed assailing Ext.P7 order passed by the respondent.

The petitioner’s case is that it is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner had filed returns for the assessment year 2018-19. The respondent issued Ext.P1 notice directing the petitioner to furnish various accounts. The petitioner had filed Ext.P1(a) reply to Ext.P1 notice. Thereafter, the respondent issued several other notices calling for additional information. The petitioner requested for a personal hearing through the video conferencing facility, as evidenced by Ext.P3(a) letter. However, the respondent, without adhering to Ext.P3(a) request, has passed Ext.P7 assessment order. Ext.P7 order has been passed in violation of the rudimentary principles of natural justice. Hence, the writ petition.

WP(C) NO. 20172 OF 2021 3. The respondent has filed a statement through its Standing Counsel, inter alia, conceding in paragraph 5 that no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner, as requested in Ext.P3(a) letter. The respondent has no objection in Ext.P7 order being set aside and the matter being considered afresh, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Heard; Sri.Harisankar V Menon, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the fair stand taken by the respondent in paragraph 5 of the statement, I deem it appropriate to set aside Ext.P7 order and direct the respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, as requested in Ext.P3(a) letter, before finalising Ext.P1 notice.

WP(C) NO. 20172 OF 2021 Resultantly, in exercise of the plenary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I order the writ petition as follows: (1)Ext.P7 order and Annexure A show cause notice are set aside. (2)The respondent is directed to reconsider the matter afresh, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard through the video conferencing. (3)The respondent is directed to send a notice to the petitioner through e-mail and through its online portal fixing the date of the hearing. (4)The respondent shall, after hearing the petitioner, finalise the proceedings in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. C.S.DIAS JUDGE jes

WP(C) NO. 20172 OF 2021

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20172/2021 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P1A COPY OF WEBPAGE ALONG WITH A COVERING LETTER Exhibit P2 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2A COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2B COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2C COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P2D COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 COPY OF WEB PAGE OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT Exhibit P3A COPY OF ONLINE RESPONDENT SEEKING FOR VIDEO CONFERRENCING Exhibit P4 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P4A COPY OF E-RESPONDENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 COPY OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P6 COPY OF ONLINE RESPONSE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P7 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.SO.3265 (E) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI Exhibit P8A COPY OF NOTIFICATION NO.SO.2746 (E) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →