Case Law Details
DECIDED BY: HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, IN THE CASE OF: Anil Kumar Kothari Vs. UOI, APPEAL NO: WP(C) 4487/2009, DECIDED ON April 28, 2010
RELEVANT EXTRACTS:
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties as well as the materials on record. In the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has submitted that he being a permanent resident of Guwahati and having regard to his background and root in Guwahati, it is unbelievable that the authority was unable to serve notice on him. Further, ; stand of the petitioner is that since the requirement of assigning reasons as contemplated in Section 127 (1) of the Act has also not been complied with, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and quashed.
10. In Ajanta Industries (supra), the Apex Court dealing with the requirement of assigning reasons in the order has made the following observations:
“6. …The reason for recording or reasons in the order and making these reasons known to the assessee is to enable an opportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court under its writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution or even this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution in an appropriate case for challenging the order, inter alia, either on the ground that it is mala fide or arbitrary or that it is based on irrelevant and extraneous considerations. Whether such a writ or special leave application ultimately fails is not relevant for a decision of the question.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
