Gauhati High Court
Balaji Carriers (I) Private Limited vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 21 September, 2022
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010191672022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6196/2022
BALAJI CARRIERS (I) PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT ,1956 HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT ASSAM WEIGH BRIDGE, NH-37, GUWAHATI,
ASSAM, 781022,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, ANUP CHOWDHURY
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
FINANCE, ROOM NO-46, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001
2:INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 (2)
GUWAHATI
AAYAKAR BHAWAN
G.S. ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI-781005
3:THEADDITIONAL/ JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
AAYAKAR BHAWAN
G.S. ROAD
CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI-781005
4:DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX
(INVESTIGATION)
DHANBAD
5:NATIONAL FACESLESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE
Page No.# 2/3
DELHI
INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
ARA CENTRE
E-2
GROUND FLOOR
JHANDEWALA EXTENSION
NEW DELHI-11000
Advocate for the Petitioner : DR. A SARAF
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
21.09.2022 Heard Dr. Ashok Saraf, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. K. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
In this writ petition the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17 has been assailed on the ground that the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity to file reply or being heard before issuing the impugned order.
Dr. Saraf submits that the impugned order has been passed on purely non-existent ground inasmuch as the Assessing authority has also not taken into account the relevant factors before arriving at an erroneous decision as regards liability of the petitioner. In support of his above contention Dr. Saraf has also taken this Court through the observations made in the impugned notice dated 29.03.2022 to contend that the petitioner was granted only 24 hours time to file his reply which was impermissible in the eye of law.
None has appeared for the Union of India to respond to the submission Page No.# 3/3 made by the petitioner's counsel although the name of learned DSGI has been duly reflected in the Cause List.
In view of the above, this Court is left with no option but to examine the matter by issuing notice.
Issue notice of motion returnable in eight weeks. Since the respondents' counsel has not appeared, the petitioner to take steps for service of notice upon all the respondents by registered post with A/D within a week from today.
Heard on the prayer of interim relief.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby provided that no coercive measure be initiated against the writ petitioner on the basis of the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 (Annexure-4) pertaining to the assessment year 2016-2017.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant