Shoreline Development Ltd Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court held that non-provision of personal hearing through Video Conferencing, as opted by the petitioner, is against the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, order passed is liable to be set aside.
Facts- The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner requesting to quash the impugned order u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act. Petitioner mainly alleges that though the several hearing notices were issued by the respondents, and all the times, where the petitioner requested for grant of personal hearing through Video Conferencing, however, the opportunity of personal hearing to appear through Video Conferencing has not been provided to the petitioner. Without providing opportunity of the personal hearing to the petitioner, the present impugned order has been passed. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent is liable to be set-aside.
Conclusion- Held that if any order is passed without providing an opportunity of personal hearing, it is clearly amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. When the respondent intended to pass orders against the petitioner, it is the bounden duty of the respondent to provide an opportunity of the personal hearing through Video Conferencing, as the petitioner opted to appear through Video Conferencing to present his case. When the Video Conferencing option was opted by the petitioner, such option was not provided by the respondent. Thus, it violates the principles of natural justice, and on this score alone, the present impugned order is liable to be set-aside.
