Case Law Details
Tvl. Mold-Tek Packaging Ltd Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that passing of ex-parte order prematurely before expiry of time limit for filing reply and without granting personal hearing is against the principle of natural justice and accordingly the order is set aside.
Facts- Petitioner, vide the present petition, challenges the ex-parte assessment order dated 30.12.2023. It is contested that a show cause notice was issued in FORM DRC-01 on 11.12.2023, wherein 30 days’ time was provided for filing a reply, which was due on or before 10.01.2024. However, the impugned assessment order was passed on 30.12.2023, 10 days before the expiry of the time limit for submitting the reply, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Conclusion- Held that although the petitioner was granted time to file the reply on or before 10.01.2024, the impugned order was prematurely passed on 30.12.2023 i.e, 10 days before the expiration of the time limit. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order was passed without receiving the petitioner’s reply and without providing a personal hearing. The principles of natural justice mandate that a party be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to present their case. In the present case, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to present their case, as the assessment was finalized without considering their reply and in the absence of a personal hearing. It is a well-settled principle of law that any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is void and liable to be set aside. In the instant case, the respondent’s failure to consider the petitioner’s reply and provide a hearing before passing the impugned order is a clear violation of these principles.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Challenging the ex parte assessment order dated 30.12.2023, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a show cause notice was issued in FORM DRC-01 on 11.12.2023, wherein 30 days’ time was provided for filing a reply, which was due on or before 10.01.2024. However, the impugned assessment order was passed on 30.12.2023, 10 days before the expiry of the time limit for submitting the reply, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Hence, the order passed by the respondent is premature and void for non-compliance with the statutory timeline.
3. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Upon consideration of the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, it is evident that although the petitioner was granted time to file the reply on or before 10.01.2024, the impugned order was prematurely passed on 30.12.2023 i.e, 10 days before the expiration of the time limit. Therefore, it is clear that the impugned order was passed without receiving the petitioner’s reply and without providing a personal hearing. The principles of natural justice mandate that a party be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to present their case. In the present case, the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to present their case, as the assessment was finalized without considering their reply and in the absence of a personal hearing. It is a well-settled principle of law that any order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is void and liable to be set aside. In the instant case, the respondent’s failure to consider the petitioner’s reply and provide a hearing before passing the impugned order is a clear violation of these principles.
5. Accordingly, the impugned assessment order dated 30.12.2023 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to submit their reply/objection within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Upon receipt of such reply/objection, the first respondent shall issue a clear 14-day notice to the 3/6 petitioner, scheduling a personal hearing. Thereafter, the first respondent is directed to pass a reasoned and appropriate order on merits and in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible.
6. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Author Bio
