Opportunity of Personal Hearing is Must Before Passing an Adverse Order Even if Assessee Didn’t Opt it | Allahabad HC

Case Details: Dana Pani v. State of U.P. - [2023] 154 taxmann.com 84 (Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Pritinker Diwaker, CJ. & Ashutosh Srivastava, J.
  • Aaditya Pandey for the Petitioner.
  • C.S.C. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the notice was issued to petitioner seeking its reply within 30 days. However, the Assessing Authority had chosen not to give any opportunity of hearing to petitioner by mentioning “NA” against column description “Date of personal hearing”. Thereafter, an order imposing demand was passed against the petitioner. It filed writ petition and contended that opportunity of hearing was not granted.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the department mentioned “NA” against the columns for “Time of personal hearing” and “Venue where personal hearing will be held” in notice. The Court further noted that it has been laid down by way of a principle of law that a person/assessee is not required to request for “opportunity of personal hearing”. It would be mandatory upon Assessing Authority to afford such opportunity before passing an adverse order and mere fact that petitioner might have signified ‘No’ in column to avail personal hearing, would bear no legal consequence. Therefore, it was held that the impugned order was to be set aside and matter was to be re-adjudicated.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com 275/2022 (59) G.S.T.L. 394/[2022] 92 GST 61 (All.) (para 6) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Bharat Mint & Allied Chemicals v. Commissioner of Commercial Tax [2022] 136 taxmann.com 275/2022 (59) G.S.T.L. 394/[2022] 92 GST 61 (All.) (para 4)
  • Hitech Sweet Water Technologies (P.) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat 2022 UPTC (Vol. 112) 1760 (para 4).