Amala Cancer Hospital Society vs. The Agricultural Income Tax Officer And Sales Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the objection raised by the petitioner against Ext.P6 assessment order was tenable. The Court found that Ext.P6 was liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. The reasoning was based on the perusal of the original file, which satisfied the Court that the petitioner's objection was valid. The ratio decidendi is that an assessment order passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee violates the principles of natural justice and is therefore liable to be set aside. The Court directed that Ext.P6 be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the first respondent for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner was directed to appear before the first respondent on September 19, 2019, and the assessment was to be completed on or before October 20, 2019. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Amala Cancer Hospital Society, challenged an assessment order dated March 27, 2019, passed by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer and State Tax Officer (first respondent). The petitioner contended that the assessment order was passed without affording them an opportunity to be heard, despite their reply dated March 26, 2019, and a prior request (Ext.P5). The petitioner argued that the order was illegal and violated the principles of natural justice. The respondents filed a statement, and the Court inspected the original file. The tax period and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessment order dated March 27, 2019 (Ext.P6), passed by the first respondent, is illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the alleged failure to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the order, thereby contravening the principles of natural justice. Contentions: Petitioner: Contended that Ext.P6 assessment order was passed without affording them an opportunity to be heard, despite their reply dated March 26, 2019, and Ext.P5 request, rendering the order illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. Respondents: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, they filed a statement and produced the original file for the Court's inspection.