SHRI.VIJAYLAXMI URBAN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

W.P.NO.106495/2020 (T-RES) BETWEEN :

SHRI VIJAYALAXMI URBAN CREDIT SOUHARDA SAHAKARI LTD., #101, 102, SHESHADRI RESIDENCY, MALAMADDI-DHARWAD-580007, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SHRI MANOJ S/O GANAPATRAO JOSHI, AGE : 50 YEARS, OCC: CEO, R/O DHARWAD-580 007. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADV.)

AND :

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(7), HUBLI, C.R.BUILDING, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA-580025. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/ 43 (3) 2019-20/ 1022139196 (1) DATED 11/12/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2 : ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent-Assessing Authority as per Annexure-F, wherein he has rejected the stay application without affording opportunity to the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the respondent passed an order of assessment on 11.12.2019 as per Annexure-B and issued a notice of demand on 11.12.2019 calling upon the petitioner to remit an amount of Rs.2,19,11,886/- within 30 days. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the assessment order as per Annexure-B has preferred an appeal before the appellant authority. Simultaneously the petitioner filed stay application before the respondent-Assessing Authority. The respondent- Assessing Authority without hearing the petitioner in gross violation of principles of natural justice has passed the impugned order as per Annexure-F.

3 4. Principles of natural justice involves procedural requirement of fairness. Essentially, natural justice requires that a person receive a fair and unbiased hearing before a decision is made that will negatively affect his. The three main requirements of natural justice that must be met in every case are, adequate notice, fair hearing and no bias. In this background, there is absolutely no fair hearing and the order under challenge is arbitrary and the same is passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. 5. The order under challenge is not sustainable on the ground that since no opportunity was afforded to the present petitioner. Accordingly, I pass the following: : ORDER : a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The impugned order passed by the respondent-Assessing Authority as per Annexure-F is quashed.

4 c) The matter stands remitted to the respondent-Assessing Authority. The respondent-Assessing Authority is directed to hear the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders on the stay application in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. d) The petitioner had the benefit of interim order before this Court. Hence, I deem it fit to direct the respondent-Assessing Authority not to take coercive steps till the stay application is decided in accidence with law.

Sd/- JUDGE EM/-