SREENI PARAMESWARAN, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, including Exts R1(a) to R1(e), found no justifiable reason to entertain the writ petition. The Court was satisfied that the petitioner was served with notice before the order (Ext P2) was passed by the second respondent (NFAC). Consequently, the Court held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. The Court found no ground to interfere with the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue other remedies in accordance with law.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Sreeni Parameswaran, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging an order (Ext P2) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The NFAC had rejected the petitioner's appeal against an assessment order (Ext P1) for assessment year 2008-09, passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Range 2, Kochi. The petitioner contended that the NFAC's order was illegal and arbitrary, violating principles of natural justice as he was not served with any intimation regarding the hearing dates. The respondents, however, filed a counter affidavit denying this, producing communications (Exts R1(a) to R1(e)) to show that notices were served on the petitioner through his registered e-mail ID, and the appeal order was also served as per Ext R1(f). They asserted no violation of natural justice occurred.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is illegal and arbitrary due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the non-service of hearing notices on the petitioner, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The petitioner argued that the NFAC's order (Ext P2) was illegal and arbitrary, violating the principles of natural justice because he was not served with any intimation regarding the posting of his appeal for hearing. He contended that this lack of notice rendered the order unsustainable. The respondents argued that the petitioner's assertion of not being served with notice was false and baseless. They produced evidence (Exts R1(a) to R1(e)) demonstrating that notices were served on the petitioner through his registered e-mail ID, and the appeal order was also served as per Ext R1(f). Therefore, they contended that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.
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 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext P2 order passed by the second respondent.
The petitioner’s case is that he is the Director of a company, which is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first respondent had completed the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 by Ext P1 order. Against the above order, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondent, which was rejected by Ext P2. Ext P2 is illegal and arbitrary. The second respondent had passed Ext P2 order on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any reply on the various hearing dates. In fact, the petitioner was not served with any intimation regarding the posting of the appeal. This is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. Although the petitioner has a remedy to file a further appeal, as there is violation of the principles of natural justice, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Ext P2 and all further proceedings pursuant to it may be quashed. Hence, the writ petition.
The respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying the assertions in the writ petition. The respondents have specifically denied the allegation in the writ petition, that the petitioner was not served with any notice is false and baseless. The respondents have produced Exts R1(a) to R1(e) communications to substantiate that the notices were served on the petitioner through his registered e-mail id. Similarly,
the appeal order was also served on the petitioner as evidenced by Ext R1(f). There is no violation of the principles of natural justice as alleged. Therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed.
Heard; Sri.Harisankar V. Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Christopher Abraham, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and after appreciating Exts R1(a) to R1(e) communications, I have no hesitation in my mind that the petitioner was served with notice before Ext P2 order was passed.
In the above conspectus, I find no justifiable reason or ground to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to work out his remedies, in accordance with law. C.S.DIAS,JUDGE DST/22.06.23 //// P.A.To Judge
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
