ABDUL KHADAR KUNJU, vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the assessment order (Ext.P1) and all consequential orders, including demand notices (Exts.P2-P8), were liable to be set aside due to the want of proper notice and hearing, which constituted a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court took note of the unambiguous admission by the 2nd respondent in its counter affidavit regarding the erroneous email address used and the need for setting aside the assessment order. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition. The operative directions included setting aside the assessment order and demand notices, directing the petitioner to register his correct email ID within two weeks, directing the respondents to send fresh show cause notices to the petitioner's correct email ID upon registration, and allowing the petitioner two weeks to submit a reply. The respondents were directed to finalize the proceedings after receiving the reply and affording the petitioner a hearing. Coercive proceedings were deferred until final orders were passed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, an Income Tax assessee engaged in the sale of lottery tickets, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) and consequential demand notices for assessment year 2013-14. The petitioner claimed he was hospitalized and had instructed his representative to file the return. He received penalty notices and later discovered that the assessment order and demand notice were passed without issuing him any proper notice. The respondents had erroneously sent notices to an incorrect email address, as evidenced by a website screenshot (Ext.P9). The petitioner apprehended coercive recovery of the demand. The 2nd respondent, in its counter affidavit, admitted that the email was sent to an invalid address and conceded that the assessment order might need to be set aside for fresh disposal after providing the petitioner an opportunity to respond.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order (Ext.P1) and consequential demand notices (Exts.P2-P8) passed against the petitioner are liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of proper notice and opportunity to be heard, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order and demand notices were passed arbitrarily and in violation of natural justice principles, as no proper notice was issued to him, and the respondents had used an incorrect email address for communication, as evident from the website screenshot. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders. Revenue's Contention: The 2nd respondent, in its counter affidavit, admitted that the email was sent to an invalid address and acknowledged that there was a case for setting aside the assessment order for fresh disposal after giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond. However, it requested that the petitioner be directed to register his correct email ID on the ITBA portal.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P1 assessment order passed against the petitioner.
The relevant facts for the determination of the writ petition are: the petitioner is an Income Tax assessee doing business in the sale of lottery tickets. In respect of his income for the assessment year 2013-14, he had instructed his authorised representative to file the return as he was hospitalsied. Surprisingly, on 22.08.2022 and 09.09.2022, the petitioner received penalty notices from the 2nd respondent. On enquiry, he learnt that Exts.P1 assessment order and P2 demand notice have been passed against him without issuing any notice against him. On verification of the website of the respondents, the petitioner learnt that the respondents have sent notices in a wrong e-mail id assuming it to be email id of the petitioner, which is evident from Ext.P9 screen short of the respondents' website. The petitioner
WP(C) NO. 30370 OF 2022 3 apprehends that the respondents may recover the demand under Ext.P1 assessment order as threatened in Exts.P3 to P8 notices. The entire proceedings leading to Ext.P1 are arbitrary, unsustainable and in hostile violation of the principles of the natural justice. Hence, the writ petition.
The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, inter-alia, admitting in paragraphs 6 and 8 that the e- mail was sent to an invalid email address and that there appears to be a case for setting aside Ext.P1 assessment order, for fresh disposal, after giving the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the various notices issued to him. Nevertheless, the said respondent has requested that the petitioner be directed to register his correct e- mail id in his e-filing account in the ITBA portal.
Heard; Sri. Marthanda Varma Pandalai, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Christopher Abraham, the learned Counsel appearing
WP(C) NO. 30370 OF 2022 4 for the respondents.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and taking note of the unambiguous admission of the 2nd respondent in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the counter affidavit, this Court has no hesitation to set aside Ext.P1 assessment order and all consequential orders passed thereon, for the want of proper notice and hearing, which is undoubtedly a violation of the principles of natural justice. Resultantly, in exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I am inclined to allow the writ petition in the following manner: (i) Ext.P1 assessment order and Exts.P2 to P8 consequential demand notices are set aside. (ii) The petitioner is directed to register his correct e-mail id in his e-filing account of the WP(C) NO. 30370 OF 2022 5 ITBA portal, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (iii) The respondents are directed to send fresh show cause notices to the petitioner's e-mail id immediately on the id getting registered. (iv) The petitioner shall, within a further two weeks from the date of receipt of the show cause notice, submit his reply with the supporting documents. (v) The respondents shall on receipt of the reply submitted by the petitioner, finalise the show cause notice, in accordance with law, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. (vi) Until such time orders are passed as directed above, all coercive proceedings
WP(C) NO. 30370 OF 2022 6 pursuant to the demand in this writ petition shall stand deferred. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. C.S.DIAS JUDGE rkc/09.06.23
WP(C) NO. 30370 OF 2022 7
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl.Dev Construction vs. The Proper OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Abbal Dass Arya vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services Tax CommissionerUttarakhand · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Darbesh Medical Enterprise vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 15 Oct 2026
