Wp/106495/2020 Of Shri.vijaylaxmi Urban Credit Souharda Sahakari Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF MARCH, 2021 BEFORE. THE HON‘BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM;W.P.NO.106495/ 2020 (RES) BETWEEN SHRI VIJAYALAXMI URBAN CREDIT SOQUHARDASAHAKARI LTD., #101, 102, SHESHADRIRESIDENCY, MALAMADDI-DHARWAD-58000/,|REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,SHRI MANOJ S/O GANAPATRAO JOSHI, —AGE : 50 YEARS, OCC: CEO,R/O DHARWAD-580 007. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADV.) AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1(7), HUBLI, C.R.BUILDING,NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,KARNATAKA-580075. .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI Y.V.RAVIRAJ, ADV.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &®22/7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS HON'BLECOURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE|ORDER BEARING NO.ITBA/AST/S/ 43 (3) 2019-20/ 1022139196|(1) DATED 11/12/2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18|VIDE ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THECOURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner is before this Court challenging the.order passed by the respondent-Assessing Authority as.per Annexure-F, wherein he has rejected the stay|applicationWwitnoutaffordingopportunityCO|tne|petitioner. 2.Tne grievance of the petitioner is that, tne|respondent.passed|af)order.of|assessmentOn11.12.2019 as per Annexure-B and issued a notice ofdemand on 11.12.2019 calling upon the petitioner to.remit an amount of Rs.2,19,11,886/- within 30 days. 3.TnepetitionerpeingaggrievedDY tne|assessment order as per Annexure-B Nas preferred an/appeal before the appellant authority. Simultaneously|the|petitionerfiledStay|applicationbeforetne|respondent-AssessinqgAuthority.The|607145?052 Assessing Autnority witnout hearing the petitioner in|gross violation of principles of natural justice Naspassed the impugned order as per Annexure-F. 4Principlesof.natural|justice.Involves|procedural requirement of fairness. Essentially, natural|justice requires that a person receive a fair andunbiased hearing before a decision is made that willnegatively affect his. The three main requirements ofnatural justice that must be met in every case are,adequate notice, fair hearing and no Dias. In thisbackground, there is absolutely no fair hearing and theorder under challenge is arbitrary and the same ispassed|witnout.affordingan|opportunity|CO|tne|petitioner. 5.|Tne order under cnallenge is not sustainable|on the ground that since no opportunity was afforded totne|present|petitioner.Accordingly,|I Dasstne|Tollowing: * ORDER: <)Tne writ petition is allowed EM/- ;)Tne.matterstandsremitted COtne|respondent-AssessinqgAuthority.The|respondent-Assessing Authority is directed|to hear the petitioner and thereafter pass|appropriate orders on the stay application|in accordance with law within eight weeks|from the date of receipt of copy of this)order.|respondent-AssessinqgAuthority.The|respondent-Assessing Authority is directed|to hear the petitioner and thereafter pass|appropriate orders on the stay application|in accordance with law within eight weeks|from the date of receipt of copy of this)order.| ?)The petitioner had the benefit of interim|order before this Court. Hence, I deem it)fitCO|direct.the|respondent-AssessinqgAutnority not to take coercive steps till the|Stay application is decided in accidence|with law.order before this Court. Hence, I deem it)fitCO|direct.the|respondent-AssessinqgAutnority not to take coercive steps till the|Stay application is decided in accidence|with law. Sd/-.JUDGE