Condor Builders PVT. LTD. vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

The case of petitioner is that on 8.3.2019, a request was made to allow one month's time to show cause to the notice dated 15.02.2019. The respondent even without informing whether the request is favourably considered and the time as prayed for is granted proceeded to record the finding that sufficient time was granted and therefore, there was no need to grant further time and passed the order impugned in the writ petition. Therefore, according to petitioner, the impugned order is in violation of the principles of natural justice since the petitioner is denied of opportunity much less participation in the pending proceedings under Section 25 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner prays for setting aside Ext.P3. 3. The learned Government Pleader contends that the time granted in the case on hand is sufficient to file reply to the show cause notice dated 15.02.2019. The petitioner is resorting to dilatory tactics and it is for the petitioner to find out whether the request made on 8.3.2019 is favourably considered or not and since no favourable order is received from the respondent, the petitioner ought to have filed a reply within the WPC No.14647/2019 3 time given by the respondent. Therefore, Government Pleader submits that there is no violation of principles of natural justice and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have perused the record and noted the limited submissions made by the counsel appearing on both sides. The dates relevant for the purpose of disposing of the writ petition are stated thus: It is a matter of record that the respondent has granted seven days' time, but before expiry of the time, a request was made to grant further thirty days' time to file reply. The request now made if is rejected, the petitioner is under obligation to reply to the show cause notice dated 15.02.2019 as per the time granted by the respondent. The operative portion of the order dealing with the request of petitioner for grant of time is rejected as follows: “Admittedly, the time required by the petitioner cannot be granted since the assessment for the year 2012-13 is supposed to be time barred on 31.3.2019.” From the above, the reason for rejecting the request for adjournment is more guided by financial year ending on 31.3.2019 but not on the verification of facts stated by petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner suffered hardship and also prejudice with the passing of Ext.P3. WPC No.14647/2019 4 The observation that sufficient time for filing reply to the notice was granted is unsustainable and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, and having regard to the chronology referred to above, Ext.P3 is unsustainable as violative of principles of natural justice and accordingly, set aside, the matter is remitted to the respondent for disposal in accordance with law.

The petitioner, accompanied by a copy of this judgment, appears before the respondent on 27.6.2019 with his reply or documents and the officer either stipulates a date for hearing or passes an order after perusing the reply of the petitioner. The respondent disposes of the case within six weeks from today. Issue a copy of this judgment in one week. S.V.BHATTI JUDGE Css/