SHYLAJA K., vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Ext.P4) rejecting the petitioner's application for waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act was in violation of the rules of natural justice because the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. The court accepted the submission made by the Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department that the assessee was not heard. Consequently, the court quashed Ext.P4 and directed the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax to pass fresh orders after providing a hearing to the petitioner. The court also ordered that recovery steps pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 notices shall be kept in abeyance until fresh orders are passed and communicated to the petitioner.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Shylaja K., filed a writ petition challenging an order (Ext.P4) passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act. This order rejected the petitioner's application for waiver of interest. The primary assertion made in the writ petition was that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to be heard before the PCIT passed the impugned order. The Income Tax Department, through its Standing Counsel, conceded that the assessee was indeed not heard prior to the passing of Ext.P4. This admission formed the basis for the court's decision.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting the petitioner's application for waiver of interest under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order rejecting her application for waiver of interest was passed without affording her an opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the rules of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department conceded that the assessee was not heard before the impugned order was passed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
220(2A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition against Ext.P4 order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 220(2A) of the Income Tax Act, whereby, the said Officer has rejected the petitioner's application for waiver of interest. The main contention urged in this writ petition is that before passing Ext.P4 order, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing.
When the matter came up for admission today, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department that it is a fact that the assessee was not heard before Ext.P4 order was passed. Taking note of the said submission, and finding Ext.P4 order to be one passed in violation of rules of natural justice, I allow this writ petition, by quashing Ext.P4 order and directing the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter, after hearing the petitioner.
I also make it clear that till such time as fresh orders are passed by the 1st respondent as directed and the order communicated to the WP(C).No.24735 OF 2019 -3- petitioner, recovery steps, pursuant to Exts.P5 and P6 notices, shall be kept in abeyance. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SJ
WP(C).No.24735 OF 2019 -4-
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026
- Mrs. Aqsa Begum vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
