KAMALUDHEEN FATHIMA vs. THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no grounds were made out to interfere with the impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court found no violation of the principles of natural justice, stating that the petitioner's failure to respond to notices, even if due to illness, did not automatically render the proceedings violative of natural justice. The Court also noted that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal against the assessment, rectification, and penalty orders. Consequently, the Court directed that if the petitioner files appeals along with applications for condonation of delay before the National Faceless Appeal Centre within two weeks from the date of the judgment, the delay shall be condoned, and the appeals shall be considered on merits. The Court clarified that failure to file the appeals within the stipulated time would result in the petitioner losing the benefit of this judgment.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kamaludheen Fathima, filed two writ petitions challenging orders related to assessment year 2017-2018. WP(C) No. 29943/2022 challenged an order of assessment (Ext.P1). WP(C) No. 378/2023 challenged an order rectifying the assessment order, and also penalty orders (Exts.P2 and P3) for the same assessment year. The petitioner's counsel argued that the impugned orders were liable to be set aside due to insufficient opportunity to participate in proceedings, citing illness as a reason for not responding to notices from the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The petitioner also argued that the rectification order was issued by an authority different from the one that issued the initial assessment order, making the rectification proceedings legally flawed.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order for assessment year 2017-2018, issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, is liable to be set aside for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing the petitioner with a sufficient opportunity to participate in the proceedings, as contemplated under the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the rectification order for assessment year 2017-2018, issued by an authority different from the original assessing authority, is bad in law? 3. Whether the penalty orders issued for assessment year 2017-2018 are liable to be set aside on grounds of procedural irregularities or violation of natural justice? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as she did not receive a sufficient opportunity to participate in the proceedings due to illness. She argued that the rectification order was issued by an improper authority, rendering the proceedings void. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent Department contended that there was no violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner failed to respond to the notices issued. They argued that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal and that the High Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Article 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 28TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 29943 OF 2022 PETITIONER: KAMALUDHEEN FATHIMA AGED 42 YEARS NALAKATH PARAMBIL, PAVARATTY, MARUTHAYOOR P.O., WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT., PIN - 680582 BY ADVS. V.P.NARAYANAN ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT LANE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS, CITY PLAZA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, PIN - 680101 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) Nos.29943/2022 and 378/2023 -2- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P. WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 28TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 378 OF 2023 PETITIONER: KAMALUDHEEN FATHIMA AGED 42 YEARS NALAKATHPARAMBIL, PAVARATTY, MAUTHAYOOR PO, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680582 BY ADV ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV RESPONDENTS: 1 THE NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (NFAC) MAYUR BHAWAN, CONNAUGHT LANE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001 2 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 & TPS, CITY PLAZA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, PIN - 680101 3 THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (RANGE 1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SAKTHANTHAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 OTHER PRESENT: ADV. JOSE JOSEPH (SC) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P (C) Nos.29943/2022 and 378/2023 -3- J U D G M E N T The petitioner in both these cases is common. W.P (C) No.29943/2022 has been filed challenging Ext.P1 order of assessment for assessment year 2017-2018 under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While in W.P (C) No.378/2023, the petitioner challenges the order rectifying the order of assessment for the very same assessment year. The petitioner also challenges Exts.P2 and P3 penalty orders issued in respect of the same assessment year in W.P (C) No.378/2023. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned orders in these cases are liable to be set aside as the petitioner did not get a sufficient opportunity to take part in the proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner was suffering from various illness and therefore could not respond to the notices issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre. It is pointed out that the order of rectification is issued by an authority different from the authority who issued the initial order of assessment and therefore the proceedings for rectifying the order are also bad in law. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Department would contend that this is not a case where there is any violation of principles of natural justice. It is submitted that it is petitioner's own showing that the petitioner has not responded to the notices issued to the petitioner and therefore there is no ground upon which the impugned orders can be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal and it is not necessary for this court to grant any relief to the petitioner in the matter.
W.P (C) Nos.29943/2022 and 378/2023 -4- 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Department, I am of the view that the the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Department is right in contending that no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned orders interfering with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no violation of principles of natural justice. The notices issued to the petitioner has not been responded by the petitioner. According to the petitioner this is on account of the fact that the petitioner was undergoing treatment. But, that by itself is not a ground to hold that the proceedings were completed in violation of natural justice. The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal against the orders of assessment/rectification and the orders imposing penalty. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the impugned orders of assessment/rectification and orders imposing penalty. Since the provisions relating to the appeal before the appellate authority do not prescribe a maximum period up to which delay can be condoned, I direct that if the petitioner files appeals along with application for condonation of delay against the impugned orders before the National Faceless Appeal Centre within a period of two weeks from today, the delay shall be condoned and the appeals shall be considered on merits. With these observations, these writ petitions are disposed of. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not file the appeals against the impugned orders within the time granted, the petitioner lose the benefit of this judgment. Sd/- GOPINATH P. JUDGE AMG
W.P (C) Nos.29943/2022 and 378/2023 -5- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29943/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.03.2022 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 Exhibit-P2 COPY OF LETTER DEMANDING THE PAYMENT OF TAX DATED 15.07.2022 Exhibit-P3 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 IN THE NAME OF WADAKKANCHERRY SILK GARDEN PRIVATE LIMITED DTED 30.12.2019
W.P (C) Nos.29943/2022 and 378/2023 -6- APPENDIX OF WP(C) 378/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENTORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.03.2022 FOR AY 2017-18 EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATIONORDER DATED 20.09.2022 PAASSED BY THE 3ND REPSONDENT EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271AAC(1)DATED 13.09.2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND REPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271F DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahadev Malik vs. Additional Commissioner, BhubaneswarOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Dillip Kumar Sethy vs. The Deputy Commissioner, CGST And Central ExciseOrissa · 10 Nov 2026
- Sri. R. Veerabhadrappa vs. The State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 6 Nov 2026
- Shaista Praween vs. The Assistant Commissoner Of GST And Central Excise, RourkelaOrissa · 6 Nov 2026
- Dipankar Borgohain vs. The Union Of INDIA And 7 OrsGauhati · 5 Nov 2026
