C.P.Bawa Timber And Saw Mil vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, C.P. Bawa Timber and Saw Mill, received a pre-assessment notice (Ext.P1) on May 30, 2018, requiring a reply within a week and providing for a personal hearing on June 11, 2018. The petitioner failed to file a reply within the stipulated time or attend the hearing. Approximately six months later, on December 31, 2018, the petitioner submitted a reply (Ext.P2). On the same day, the assessing authority passed the assessment order (Ext.P3). The petitioner challenged the assessment order, alleging a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's grievance that the assessing authority did not consider the reply in the proper perspective is an aspect of adjudication on merits, or the lack thereof, and cannot be considered a lapse in following the principles of natural justice. While the authority had referred to portions of the petitioner's reply in the assessment order, the petitioner's persistent contention was that this was merely an extract without discussion on the merits of the objections. The Court found no violation of the principles of natural justice by the authorities. However, acknowledging the petitioner's pursuit of the writ petition, the Court clarified that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before the appellate authority. The appellate authority was directed to exclude the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting the writ petition for the purpose of limitation. The Court declined to express any view on the merits of the case. Coercive steps were deferred for one month to enable the petitioner to file the statutory appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the assessing authority violated the principles of natural justice by passing the assessment order on the same day the petitioner submitted its reply, without adequate time for consideration? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the assessing authority violated principles of natural justice by passing the order on the same day the reply was submitted, leaving insufficient time to consider the objections raised. They also argued that they were not given an opportunity for a personal hearing, despite requesting one in their reply to supply additional material. The authority merely extracted the reply without addressing the merits. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the petitioner was provided opportunities for both a reply and a personal hearing but failed to avail them. They argued that the assessing authority did consider the petitioner's reply, as evidenced by references to it in the assessment order. Any grievance, at best, would be on merits, not on a violation of natural justice.