Case Law Details
Abhimanyu Mohanty Vs Assistant Commissioner (Orissa High Court)
The Orissa High Court, in a recent judgment, has set aside an ex parte assessment order dated 17.05.2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Angul Division, Angul. The order pertains to the tax period of 2016-17 and was challenged by Abhimanyu Mohanty. The court has provided the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice (SCN) and directed a fresh assessment.
The case of Abhimanyu Mohanty versus the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Angul Division, Angul revolves around the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. The petitioner, Abhimanyu Mohanty, was subject to an ex parte assessment order for the tax period of 2016-17, which included interest and penalties under Sections 73(1), 75, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Mohanty challenged the order on the grounds that he was not served with the necessary notice and therefore was unable to file a reply to the SCN issued by the department. The court’s review of the impugned order confirmed that it was indeed passed ex parte, without Mohanty’s participation or response.
Upon hearing the arguments from both parties, the Orissa High Court determined that Mohanty was deprived of a fair chance to present his case. The court emphasized the importance of giving taxpayers an opportunity to respond to notices and defend themselves before any adverse orders are passed.
In its judgment, the Orissa High Court set aside the ex parte assessment order and issued the following directions:
1. Submission of Reply: The petitioner, Abhimanyu Mohanty, is required to submit a reply to the SCN on or before 15.07.2024.
2. Fresh Assessment: The Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Angul Division, is directed to take up the matter on 18.07.2024. After providing a fair hearing to the petitioner, a fresh assessment order is to be passed within two months.
3. Further Remedies: If Mohanty is aggrieved by the fresh assessment order, he retains the right to seek appropriate legal remedies in accordance with the law.
The judgment in Abhimanyu Mohanty Vs Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice in tax assessments. By setting aside the ex parte order and directing a fresh assessment, the Orissa High Court has reinforced the importance of giving taxpayers a fair opportunity to present their case. This decision serves as a reminder to tax authorities to diligently follow due process, ensuring that taxpayers’ rights are protected.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 17.05.2024 of the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Angul Division, Angul (Opposite Party) under Sections 73(1), 75 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest and penalty for the tax period 2016-17.
3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that it was passed ex parte. In fact, the petitioner was unable to appear and did not even file a reply to the show cause notice (SCN) issued to him preceding the above assessment order.
4. In the petition, the petitioner has explained how he was not served with any notice for which he was not able to file reply to the show cause notice.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner ought to be given one more chance to first reply to the SCN and then appear before the assessing authority for a fresh assessment order to be passed in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 17.05.2024 of Opposite Party, this Court directs as under:-
(i) The petitioner will first file a reply to the SCN on or before 15.07.2024.
(ii) The matter will thereafter be taken up by opposite party on 18.07.2024, and after hearing the petitioner, a fresh assessment order shall be passed within a period of two months thereafter. If aggrieved by such order, it will be open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Author Bio
