- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Kerala High Court admits petitions challenging Income Tax Act Faceless Assessment Procedure being considered arbitrary and violative The Kerala High Court has admitted a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Faceless Assessment Procedure (FAP) under Section 144B of the Income Tax (IT) Act Several petitioners, including Mohamed Babu Paramboor of Malappuram...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Kerala High Court admits petitions challenging Income Tax Act
Faceless Assessment Procedure being considered arbitrary and violative
The Kerala High Court has admitted a bunch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Faceless Assessment Procedure (FAP) under Section 144B of the Income Tax (IT) Act
Several petitioners, including Mohamed Babu Paramboor of Malappuram (a city in the state of Kerala), stated that the procedure provided under the IT Act was patently arbitrary and violated the Constitution of India.
The petitioners maintained that fetters were placed on the right of personal hearing, thus, making the assessment procedure violative of the principles of natural justice and making the Section, manifestly arbitrary.
The norm of the law was that whenever an order having a civil consequence was passed against any person, they were to be given an opportunity of being heard. The petitioners contended that the assessments made against them were invalid, as they were not given an opportunity of being heard.
Thereafter, the court stayed all further proceedings pursuant to the assessments made against the petitioners.