UBAID P.T. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

WP(C)/11525/2022HC KeralaKLHC01023689202201 March 2023Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI4 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the assessment order (Ext.P3). The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the 24-hour period granted to respond to the draft assessment order was insufficient, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The Court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Assessment Centre) to pass fresh draft assessment orders in accordance with law. Crucially, the Court mandated that sufficient time must be given to the petitioner to respond to these fresh draft orders. The issue of limitation, though raised, was not decided as the petitioner sought relief primarily in the form of adequate time for response.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Ubaid P.T., proprietor of U.K. Industries, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order (Ext.P3) issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The petitioner contended that the draft assessment order provided only 24 hours to file objections, which was insufficient time to present his case. He had also submitted a request for adjournment and personal hearing (Ext.P2), which was allegedly not considered. The primary ground for challenging the order was a violation of natural justice. While limitation was also raised, the petitioner primarily sought sufficient time to respond to the draft assessment order. The department's counsel conceded that 24 hours was indeed insufficient.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order (Ext.P3) is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for providing insufficient time to respond to the draft assessment order? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the 24-hour period granted to respond to the draft assessment order was insufficient and violated the principles of natural justice. He also sought an adjournment and personal hearing, which were not considered. The petitioner stated he would be satisfied if sufficient time was granted to respond. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the department fairly submitted that time could be granted, acknowledging that only 24 hours were provided, which appeared insufficient.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 10TH PHALGUNA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 11525 OF 2022 PETITIONER: UBAID P.T. AGED 44 YEARS PROPRIETOR, U.K.INDUSTRIES, 11/449A, KUNDAYITHODU, KOLATHARA (POST), KOZHIKODE - 673 655. BY ADVS. HARISANKAR V. MENON K.KRISHNA MEERA V.MENON R.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SOUTH BLOCK, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 001. 2 THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI - 100 001. BY ADV CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 11525 OF 2022 2 T.R.RAVI, J. ---------------------------------------- WP (C) No.11525 of 2022 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 01st day of March, 2023

JUDGMENT The prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P3 order issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P3 is an assessment order which was assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not get sufficient time to put forward his case. It is contended that the draft assessment order granted only 24 hours' time to the petitioner for filing objections. The petitioner had preferred Ext.P2 seeking adjournment as well as for personal hearing. It was not considered by the 2nd respondent while issuing the assessment order. The main ground on which the order is challenged is, violation of the principles of natural justice. Even though there is an objection taken in the writ petition that the assessment proceedings are barred by limitation, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if sufficient time is granted to him

WP(C) NO. 11525 OF 2022 3 for responding to the draft assessment order. The Standing Counsel for the department fairly submitted that time can be granted since it is apparent from the order that only 24 hours' time was granted. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P3 is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to pass fresh draft assessment orders in accordance with law, after giving sufficient time to the petitioner to respond. T.R.RAVI sn JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 11525 OF 2022 4

Appendix — schedule of exhibits

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11525/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 COPY OF REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, NFAC, KOZHIKODE. Exhibit P3 COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →