NIVRUTTI SUDAMRAO NAVALE (HUF) vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 5, PUNE AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/4233/2021HC BombayHCBM01010541202030 August 2021Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders in each of the writ petitions, all dated 10th February 2020. The Court remanded the matters back to the concerned authority for denovo consideration. The Court explicitly stated that it had not made any observations on the merits of the case and that the petitioners' rights and contentions were kept open. The concerned authority was directed to grant a personal hearing to the petitioners as per the rules and pass necessary orders within six weeks from the date of the order. The reasoning was based on the Revenue's concession that the one-day notice violated principles of natural justice. The ratio decidendi is that a procedural violation of natural justice, when conceded by the Revenue, warrants setting aside the order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration with proper procedural safeguards.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, Kisan Vithoba Navale (HUF) and others, filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court challenging orders passed by the respondents, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Pune, and others. The core grievance was that the impugned orders, all dated 10th February 2020, were passed after providing only about one day's notice, which the petitioners contended violated principles of natural justice. The Revenue, through an affidavit filed by Mr. K.P.C. Rao, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune, acknowledged that the assessee was given only one day to submit details by the notice dated 03.02.2020, which was not in consonance with natural justice principles. The Revenue submitted to appropriate directions from the Court, including remand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned orders, passed after providing only approximately one day's notice, are in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby warranting quashing and setting aside. (Question of law and fact, concerning procedural fairness). Assessee's Contention: The petitioners argued that the action by the respondents, in issuing notices and passing orders with minimal notice (about one day), was against the principles of natural justice. They sought the quashing of the impugned orders on this ground. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, in its affidavit, conceded that the assessee was given only one day's opportunity to submit details by the notice dated 03.02.2020, which was not in consonance with the principles of natural justice. The Revenue submitted to the Court's directions, including a remand to the Revisional Authority for fresh consideration.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/3 58.wp-4223-21.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4223 OF 2021 Kisan Vithoba Navale (HUF)

….Petitioner V/s. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Pune & Ors. …Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4233 OF 2021 Nivrutti Sudamrao Navale (HUF)

….Petitioner V/s. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Pune & Ors.

…Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4224 OF 2021 Govinda Vithoba Navale (HUF)

….Petitioner V/s. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Pune & Ors.

…Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4247 OF 2021 Vidura Vithoba Navale (HUF) ….Petitioner V/s. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Pune & Ors.

…Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION ST.NO. 92415 OF 2020 Bhiku Narayan Navale (HUF)

….Petitioner V/s. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Pune & Ors.

…Respondents Meera Jadhav MEERA MAHESH JADHAV MEERA MAHESH JADHAV Date: 2021.09.01 11:25:51 +0530

2/3 58.wp-4223-21.doc ---- Mr. Suyog Bhave i/b Ms Farzeen Khambatta for Petitioners Mr. Sham Walve a/w Mr. Pritish Chatterjee for Respondents ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.

DATED : 30th AUGUST 2021 P.C. : 1 In all these petitions, the impugned order was passed after giving only about one day’s notice. Petitioners have approached this court raising a grievance that the action by respondents is against principles of natural justice and for quashing of the impugned order. One Mr. K.P.C. Rao, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune, on behalf of respondents has filed affidavit affirmed on 27th August 2021 in each of the petitions. Paragraph 4 of the each of the affidavit reads as under:

“4. I say that, it is clear that the assessee was given only one day’s opportunity to submit the details by the last notice dated 03.02.2020, which is not in consonance of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, without going into any of the merits of present matter, I say that the respondent submits to the appropriate directions of this Hon’ble Court including remand to the Revisional Authority for fresh consideration of the matter in hand.” 2 Mr. Walve states that the court may quash the impugned order and remand the matter back for denovo consideration in view of paragraph 4 quoted above. 3 In view of the above, the order impugned in each of the above petitions, all dated 10th February 2020, is hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded back to the concerned authority for denovo consideration. Petitioners’ rights and contentions are kept open. We have Meera Jadhav

3/3 58.wp-4223-21.doc not made any observations on the merits of the case. The concerned authority to grant a personal hearing to petitioners as per the rules and pass the necessary orders within 6 weeks from today. 4 All petitions disposed. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Meera Jadhav

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →