AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
“a. Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned order in original dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure No.1) passed by respondent no.3 as the same has been passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and is void ab initio.
b)Issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent no.3 to re-decide the matter afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file a detailed reply and a subsequent, logical date for personal hearing, and after considering all the submissions, books of accounts, and documents.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the show cause notice dated 03.10.2023 wherein the date by which reply was to be submitted is 03.11.2023 whereas the date of personal hearing is 18.10.2023. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that date of personal hearing was fixed prior to the last date of submission of the reply to the show cause notice, and, therefore, the procedure adopted was wholly illegal. He has placed reliance on a judgment of Coordinate Bench in Writ Petition (M/B) No.123 of 2025 “M/s Modline Thermal Systems Private Limited v. State of Uttarakhand and others”, in support of the submission that the date of personal hearing could not be prior to the date fixed for submission of reply to the show cause notice. The relevant extract from the said judgment is as follows:-
“5)A conjunctive reading of Section 73, 74 and 75 makes it apparent that the approach adopted by the Authority is contrary to the scheme of the Act. Sub Section 4 and 5 of Section 75 of the Act reads as under:-
“75.(4) An opportunity of hearing shall be granted where a request is received in writing from the person chargeable with tax or penalty, or where any adverse decision is contemplated against such person. (5) The proper officer shall, if sufficient cause is shown by the person chargeable with tax, grant time to the said person and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted for more than three times to a person during the proceedings.”
6)The scheme of the Act enables the assessee to seek for adjournment not in excess of three times and it is pertinent to note that sub-section 5 succeeds sub-section 4, which enables the assessee to seek for a personal hearing. Section 75 relates to the procedural aspect that is required to be followed by the Authorities in the matter of determination of assessment, more particularly, of tax that has escaped assessment.
7)If the statute stipulates a matter to be performed in a particular manner, the same shall be performed in that manner only. Law in this regard is no more res integra and is well-settled by catena of judgments of the Apex Court.”
Learned counsel for the Revenue is not in a position to dispute that, since date for personal hearing was fixed prior to the date of submission of reply, therefore, personal hearing allegedly afforded was not effective and, has resulted in breach of principles of nature justice. She, however, submits that the appeal filed the petitioner against the order-in-original has already been dismissed by an order dated 15.05.2026.
As far as the appeal is concerned, that has been dismissed by the respondent no.2 solely on the ground of limitation.
Accordingly, the Assessment Order is, hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Assessing Officer to proceed from the stage of show cause notice, and grant opportunity to the petitioner-firm to file its reply and, thereafter, fix a date for personal hearing.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.