SHRI MANGALAJYOTHI VIVIDHODDESHA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER

WP/21478/2021HC KarnatakaKAHC01044355202106 June 2025Bench: B M SHYAM PRASAD4 pages

AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that in the given circumstances, where the Assessment Order was passed notwithstanding a belated reply, there was a need for limited interference on the ground of lack of opportunity. The Court found that the petitioner was not afforded sufficient time to respond to the show cause notice. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Assessment Order and the Demand Notice. The proceedings were restored to the Assessing Officer, who was directed to consider the petitioner's cause to the notice and proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioner was directed to file a certified copy of the order with the Assessing Officer within four weeks. The Assessing Officer was also given the liberty to provide an opportunity for further response if one was not filed along with the certified copy of the order. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and a short notice period, especially after a remittance by a higher authority, can vitiate the assessment proceedings if it leads to a denial of this opportunity.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Shri Mangalajyothi Vividhoddesha Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha, is aggrieved by an Assessment Order dated 07.09.2021 and a consequential Demand Notice dated 07.09.2021, both issued by the Assessing Officer (National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi). The Assessment Order was passed after the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal had remitted the proceedings to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer noted that a show cause notice dated 13.08.2021 was issued, but no reply was received. The petitioner contends that the show cause notice provided only seven days, including weekends, to respond. The petitioner claims to have received the notice on 25.08.2021 and filed a reply the next day, but the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessment Order dated 07.09.2021, passed by the Assessing Officer, is liable to be quashed on the ground of lack of adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case, particularly in light of the short period provided for response to the show cause notice dated 13.08.2021? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the show cause notice dated 13.08.2021, issued after the ITAT remitted the proceedings, provided an unreasonably short period of seven days, including weekends, for the assessee to respond. The petitioner claims to have received the notice on 25.08.2021 and filed a reply on 26.08.2021, yet the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the assessment order without considering this reply. The petitioner relies on the principle of natural justice, emphasizing the right to a fair hearing. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the Assessing Officer observed that no reply was received to the show cause notice dated 13.08.2021. No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue in opposition to the petitioner's plea for quashing the order on grounds of lack of opportunity.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19259 WP No. 21478 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21478 OF 2021 (T-IT) BETWEEN:

SHRI MANGALAJYOTHI VIVIDHODDESHA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA 3W3 310/3, EDEN PARADISE BATTAGUDDA BEJAI MANGALURU 575004 RERPESENTED BY ITS C.E.O MR. UDAY R AGE 31 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN.,ADVOCATE) AND:

ASSESSING OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI 110001

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN ATTAVARA MANGALURU 575001

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVI RAJ Y V., A/W SRI. M. DILIP, ADVOCATES)

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19259 WP No. 21478 of 2021

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT 07.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE R1 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G; QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DT 07.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE R1 MARKED AS ANNEXURE- HGRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE DEMAND NOTICE DT 07.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE R1 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the first respondent [as per Annexure - G], and the consequential Demand Notice also dated 07.09.2021 issued by the first respondent [as per Annexure - H]. The first respondent has concluded the impugned Assessment Order essentially in the light of the following observation:

"Further show cause notice dated 13.08.2021 was issued to the assessee

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19259 WP No. 21478 of 2021

where in assessee was requested to submit the explanation/clarification regarding the same, however no reply in this regards was received till date."

Mr. Mahesh R. Uppin, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was issued with the Show Cause Notice dated 13.08.2021 [Annexure - E] after the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 26.08.2019 remitting the proceedings to the Assessing Officer. The first respondent, in issuing the Show Cause Notice dated 13.08.2021, has allowed only seven days, including two intervening weekends to show cause. The petitioner did not know about the notice until 25.08.2021, but on the very next day has filed reply under acknowledgment, and notwithstanding the same, the first respondent has observed as aforesaid.

This Court, in the circumstances and the undisputable position being that the Assessment

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19259 WP No. 21478 of 2021

Order is notwithstanding a reply though belated, is of the considered view that there must be limited interference on the ground of lack of opportunity, restoring the proceedings to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's cause to the notice and proceed further in accordance with law.

The petition stands allowed accordingly, and the petitioner is called upon to file a certified copy of this order with the first respondent within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that it would be open to the first respondent to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to file further response if such response is not filed along with a certified copy of this order.

SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →