HARSHA GOYAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ANR
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that a clear case for remand was made out due to the violation of the principles of natural justice. The court found that the assessment order was passed in haste, and the e-proceedings on the Income Tax portal were closed before the timeline, without considering the petitioner's reply/objections. Consequently, the impugned assessment order dated March 30, 2022, and all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed. The matter was remanded back to the competent authority to proceed afresh with the framing of the assessment order, ensuring due consideration of the petitioner's reply/objections dated March 29, 2022. The court explicitly clarified that it had not examined the issue on merits. The writ petition was disposed of in these terms.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Harsha Goyal, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated March 30, 2022, a consequential demand notice dated March 30, 2022, and a penalty notice dated March 30, 2022, for the assessment year 2016-17. The respondents are the Income Tax Officer and another authority. The High Court considered an application for taking on record a short reply filed by the respondents. The court heard counsel for both parties. The respondents' counsel conceded that there was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. This violation occurred because the assessment order was passed in haste, and e-proceedings on the Income Tax portal were closed before the stipulated timeline, preventing the consideration of the petitioner's reply to the draft assessment order and show cause notice.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order dated 30.03.2022, consequential demand notice dated 30.03.2022, and penalty notice dated 30.03.2022, for assessment year 2016-17, are liable to be quashed on grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the assessment order was passed in haste, and the e-proceedings were closed prematurely, preventing their objections from being considered. This constitutes a violation of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, fairly conceded before the court that there had been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. They referred to their written statement which reflected this violation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13284-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.12.2022 Harsha Goyal
... Petitioner vs. The Income Tax Officer & another ... Respondents CORAM: - HON'BLE MR JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: - Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate and Ms. Savi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Varun Issar, Jr. Standing counsel for the respondents. ... TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. (ORAL). CM-19655-CWP-2022: Application is allowed as prayed for. The accompanying short reply on behalf of the respondents along with Annexure R-1 is taken on record. Complete copy stands furnished to counsel opposite. Application is disposed of. Main case: Instant writ petition was directed against the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-23) pertaining to the assessment year 2016- 17 as also consequential demand notice dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-24) and penalty notice dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-25). We have heard counsel for the parties. Mr. Varun Issar, learned Junior Standing counsel for the respondents very fairly concedes before us and makes a reference to the HARJEET KAUR 2022.12.16 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP-13284-2022 (O&M) -2- avements made in the written statement, which would reflect that there has been a gross violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the assessment order was passed in haste and e-proceedings on the Income Tax portal were closed even prior to the time line drawn and as such without considering the reply/objections that had been preferred by the petitioner/ assessee against the draft assessment order/show cause notice. We are of the considered view that a clear case for remand is made out. The impugned assessment order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-23) as also all subsequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed on account of violation of the natural justice. Matter is remanded back to competent authority to proceed afresh as regards framing of assessment order but after due consideration of the reply/objections dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure P-19). Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. It is clarified that we have not examined the issue on merits.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
JUDGE (SANJIV BERRY) 15.12.2022 JUDGE harjeet (i) Whether speaking/non speaking? Yes/no (ii) Whether reportable/non reportable? Yes/no HARJEET KAUR 2022.12.16 09:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dinesh Dash vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Surveillance System, Sambalpur vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST Odisha , CT And GST Commissionerate , Cuttack OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Himansu Palei vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST CBIC Keonjhar Division, KeonjharOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Access Worldwide Cargo vs. The Commissioner Of CustomsKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
