S. Rajasekaran Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that issuance of multiple notices for same year lead to confusion because of which petitioner failed to furnish the reply. Accordingly, order set aside with direction to grant proper opportunity of being heard.
Facts- The prayer in these writ petitions is to quash the orders dated 18.12.2023 and 19.12.2023, respectively, on the grounds that they are erroneous, illegal, and violative of the principles of natural justice.
It is contested that the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 is liable to be set aside as it was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. Further, regarding the impugned order dated 19.12.2023, it was contended that the same demand had already been raised by another authority, making the order of 19.12.2023 a duplication of the demand.
Conclusion- Held that given the confusion surrounding the issuance of multiple notices for the same year and the fact that the petitioner has already paid the tax amount, it is only just and fair to allow the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply and present their case before a fresh order is passed. Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 19.12.2023 and direct the respondent to provide the petitioner with a proper opportunity to be heard.
