Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Assessment Order Due To Insufficient Notice Period

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Assessment Order Due To Insufficient Notice Period

The Court noted that the Petitioner was not able to file reply/response since the Respondent had allowed only four days to file a reply amidst a surge in COVID-19 and the subsequent lockdown in the state

The High Court of Rajasthan set aside an assessment order against the Petitioner – Assessee on account of the COVID-19 lockdown as well as an insufficient period of four days provided for filing a reply to the show-cause notice and draft assessment order.

A single-judge court of Justice Dinesh Mehta in the High Court of Rajasthan dealt with the matter titled Radhe Shyam Kumhar v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.

The Petitioner – Assessee through this writ petition had challenged the order of the Respondent – Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax passed on 23 April 2021. The Petitioner submitted that he had received show-cause notice on 19 April 2021 along with the proposed draft assessment order requiring the Petitioner to file a response before 23 April 2021. The Petitioner further submitted that he was not able to file his reply nor was he able to contact his advocate for preparing the reply since the lockdown was imposed by the State of Rajasthan during that period. Another contention of the Petitioner was that the Respondent had committed an error in giving only four days to the Petitioner to respond to the show-cause notice.

On the other hand, the Respondent – Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax contended that the writ petition was not maintainable as there was an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal available before the Commissioner of Appeals under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Court noted that the Petitioner's grievance was genuine that he was not able to file reply/response since the Respondent had allowed only four days to file a reply while dealing with the situation of lockdown due to the surge in COVID-19 cases.

The Court opined that the Respondent had seriously erred in giving such an insufficient period to file a reply as well as by not adjourning the matter.

The judge dismissed the contention of the non-maintainability of the writ petition by stating the follows:

"Mr. Bissa's contention that petitioner be relegated to avail remedy of appeal does not impress the Court, inasmuch as violation of principles of natural justice is writ-large in the present case."

The Petitioner was directed by the Court to file the reply by 16 August 2021.

The Court, therefore, set aside the assessment order and directed the Respondent to pass a fresh order, after considering Petitioner's reply/response.