9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allenged primarily on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice which are canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner in following manner: (i) According to the petitioner, after certain hearings before the Assessing Officer, further hearing was fixed on 23.11.2020. On 23.11.2020, the representative of the petitioner company was present to advance his arguments before the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer could not conduct the hearing. Thereafter, there was no further communication or notice from the Assessing Officer to the petitioner or its representative till the order of assessment was passed on 26.02.2021. In short, the case of the petitioner is that the assessment order was passed without completing the hearing of the assessment proceedings. (ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer in the impugned order has compared the dealer's value with "office value" and the difference between two is taken as undisclosed sale value for the purpose of demanding further taxes. Counsel submitted that this office value was gathered by the Assessing Officer behind the back of the petitioner and utilized in the order of assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st of the petitioner for virtual hearing. [5] First dealing with the question of adequate hearing before the Assessing Officer passed in order of assessment, the petitioner has averred in the petition that: "The hearing from 16.11.2020 to 18.11.2020 was recorded by the Respondent No.3 in the proceedings sheet and the same was duly signed by representatives of the Petitioner. Next date of hearing was fixed as 23.11.2020, to highlight the issues (if any) with the documents submitted and to produce further documents, if required, post scrutiny of documents submitted. The same was noted in the proceedings sheet which were countersigned by the representatives of the Petitioner. As per the schedule, representatives of the Petitioner appeared on 23.11.2020 for the final hearing. However, the Petitioner was informed telephonically that the Respondent No.3 is not in office. Subsequently, representatives of the Petitioner visited the office of the Respondent No.3 on multiple occasions to facilitate closure of assessment for the Relevant Period. However, no final hearing was conducted." It was further stated that: "The Respondent partly conducted a hearing, and, fixed a further hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wever, the Petitioner is not in receipt of specified notice(s), other than those captured above, including Show Cause Notice dated 05.02.2021. Further, copy of such notices along with proof of dispatch has not been shared as part of the Counter Affidavit. The Petitioner first became aware of existence of such notice(s) on receipt of proceeding sheet in response to RTI application. Copies of such notices along with proof of dispatch were not even shared in response to the RTI application." [8] To put it simply, according to the petitioner, though its representative was present before the Assessing Officer on 23.11.2020 the hearing did not proceed. The Assessing Officer has not denied this. He has only stated that in the first half of the date no one had remained present and in the second half he had some other commitments. In any case the Assessing Officer did not conclude the proceedings on 23.11.2020. Thereafter, though the Assessing Officer has contended that several notices were sent to the petitioner, there is no evidence of service of any of them. The petitioner has gone on affidavit stating that no such notice was received by the petitioner after 23.11.2020. Even, otherwise, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d outside the state, insistence on personal appearance would require several people to travel long distances exposing them as well as others to cross infections. There were times when severe restrictions on inter-state movements particularly originating from the states which were recording high number of Corona cases were imposed. Insisting on personal hearing would either expose the representatives to catching infection or force the Assessing Officer to adjourn the hearings resulting into delays. [11] In a given case, we will examine the provisions under the relevant statute more closely and will also take into account the view point of the administration in resisting such virtual hearings. In the present case, however, in the interest of justice we would permit such virtual hearing. This is so for the reason that the petitioner is a company whose Head Office is registered at Kolkata. Its representatives such as accountants and legal representatives would have to travel long distances to appear before the Assessing Officer and it is not certain that such hearing could be concluded in one day. [12] When we are quashing the very order of assessment on the ground of inadequate hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
