RAJASEKARAN NITHIYANANDHAMM vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, THANE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/4129/2022HC BombayHCBM01045481202128 August 2023Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. NEELA KEDAR GOKHALE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Court, noting the factual similarity to Writ Petition No. 4108 of 2022, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 26th March 2021. The matter was remanded to Respondent No. 1 for de-novo consideration. Respondent No. 1 was directed to dispose of the application within eight weeks. Crucially, before passing any order, Respondent No. 1 must grant a personal hearing to the petitioner, with notice communicated at least five working days in advance. The order to be passed must be on merits, addressing the petitioner's claims and all submissions made by the petitioner. The principle derived is that where facts are identical to a previously decided matter and procedural fairness is lacking, a remand for de-novo consideration with a personal hearing is appropriate.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajasekaran Nithiyanandhamm, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 26th March 2021 passed by Respondent No. 1, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane. The facts of this petition were stated to be almost identical to those in Writ Petition No. 4108 of 2022. The petitioner was represented by Mr. Dharan Gandhi and Ms. Aanchal Vyas, while the respondents were represented by Mr. Ajeet Manwani and Ms. Samiksha Kanani. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay heard the matter.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated 26th March 2021 is to be quashed and set aside, and the matter remanded for de-novo consideration. (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the facts in this petition were identical to those in Writ Petition No. 4108 of 2022, implying a similar outcome was warranted. No specific authorities or precedents were named in the provided text for the assessee's argument. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

401-aswp-4129-2022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4129 OF 2022 Rajasekaran Nithiyanandhamm … Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Thane & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Dharan Gandhi with Ms Aanchal Vyas for Petitioner. Mr. Ajeet Manwani with Ms Samiksha Kanani for Respondent. CORAM K. R. SHRIRAM & DR. N. K. GOKHALE, JJ. DATED: 28th August 2023 P.C. : 1. Learned counsel states that facts in this Petition are almost identical to the facts in Writ Petition No.4108 of 2022. Therefore, in this Petition also, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26th March 2021 and remand the matter to Respondent No.1 for de-novo consideration. Application shall be disposed within eight weeks. Before passing any order, Respondent No.1 shall give personal hearing to Petitioner notice whereof shall be communicated at least five working days in advance. Order to be Page 1 of 2 Shivgan

401-aswp-4129-2022.doc passed shall be order on merits on Petitioner's claims in the application and deal with all submissions of Petitioner. 2. The Petition is disposed. (DR. N. K. GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Page 2 of 2 Shivgan SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date: 2023.08.31 13:07:35 +0530

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →