9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned Reopening Notice dated 30 March 2021 (Exhibit A), Impugned Assessment Order dated 31 March 2022 (Exhibit B), Impugned Notice of Demand dated 31 March 2022 (Exhibit C) and Impugned Penalty Notice dated 31 March 2022 (Exhibit D); (c) Issue a writ of Prohibition or a writ in the nature of Prohibition restraining the Respondents from acting pursuant to or in furtherance of the Impugned Reopening Notice dated 30 March 2021 (Exhibit A). Impugned Assessment Order dated 31 March 2022 (Exhibit B), Impugned Notice of Demand dated 31 March 2022 (Exhibit C) and Impugned Penalty Notice dated 31 March 2022 (Exhibit D); (d) Issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to forthwith withdraw and cancel the Impugned Reopening Notice dated 30 March 2021 (Exhibit A), Impugned Assessment Order dated 31 March 2022 (Exhibit B) Impugned Notice of Demand dated 31 March 2022 (Exhibit C), and Impugned Penalty Notice dated 31 March 2022 (Exhibit D); (e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay the operation and implementation of the Impugned Reopening Notice dated 30 March 2021 (Exhibit A). Impugned Assessment Order dated 31 M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncluding the use of an erroneous e-mail ID of the Petitioner other than the registered e-mail ID, which was not used and considered in addressing communications to the Petitioner. All such errors as contended by the Petitioner have culminated into a show cause notice being issued to the Petitioner on 30 March, 2022 proposing an addition on the alleged transactions with a total stranger one M/s. Kushal Group, when in fact there were no such transactions with the said group. In fact what was earlier contained in the show cause notice was the transaction with M/s. Toyam Industries, being subject matter of the reasons as furnished to the Petitioner to reopen the assessment. The objections of the Petitioner in that regard were not disposed of. However, before the Petitioner could contest such show cause notice on these contentions, the AO proceeded to finalise the assessment, by issuing the impugned order dated 31 March, 2022 and raising the impugned demand notice as also penalty notice. 5. The Respondent-Revenue has filed reply affidavit to the petition. What is seen from the reply affidavit is something which is not only disturbing but quite surprising which compounds the careless ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act, itself were not disposed of. It is submitted that the non-disposal of such objections by the AO go to the root matter, as such approach of the AO would be contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court has categorically observed that the AO is bound to furnish reasons in a reasonable time, and on basis of such reasons the noticee is entitled to file objections to the issuance of notice, and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by a speaking order, which admittedly is not passed in the present proceedings. Since, the Assessing Officer had not disposed of the objections by a speaking order, the assessment as undertaken by the AO would required to be held to be illegal. 7. This apart, Mr. Naniwadekar would next submit that now the department cannot for the first time furnish fresh reasons and support the impugned reassessment order dated 31 March, 2022, as this would bring about a situation wherein the original reasons as furnished to the Petitioner and in regard to which the objections were raised by the Petitioner are being substituted and without a lawful procedure being follo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 31 March, 2022, it is quite clear that such order was passed on the basis of reasons which were furnished to the Petitioner under a notice issued under Section 143 (2) read with Section 147, and to which objections were raised by the Petitioner vide reply dated 15 October, 2021 which were not disposed of by passing a speaking order. Thus, as observed hereinabove, the case is clearly hit by the principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. (Supra) and on this basic issue, the impugned order will be required to be quashed and set aside. 11. We also cannot countenance an argument as urged on behalf of the department that sanctity should be attributed to the fresh reasons which form part of the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner under Section 151 of the Act, and which now ought to be considered as the appropriate reasons. Such a plea cannot be taken after the assessment order is already passed. In our opinion, it is not permissible for the Respondents-Revenue to raise such contentions as this will be completely contrary to the well settled principles of law and the sanctity of the procedure under Section 148 as it stood ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
