Delhi High Court
Shrutee Exports Private Limited vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 April, 2022
$~73, 78-80
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6486/2022 & CM APPLs.19671-19672/2022
SHRUTEE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gagan Kumar with Ms. Radhika
Dubey, Soami Dharmendra,
Ms. Nishtha Kaura, Mr. Karan
Nagrath, Mr. Varun Nagrath,
Ms. Aparjita Sahani, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal with Mr. Tushar
Gupta and Mr. Samarth Chaudhari,
Advocates for Revenue.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey,
Advocate for UOI.
78
+ W.P.(C) 6491/2022 & CM APPLs.19680-19681/2022
SHRUTEE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gagan Kumar with Ms. Radhika
Dubey, Soami Dharmendra,
Ms. Nishtha Kaura, Mr. Karan
Nagrath, Mr. Varun Nagrath,
Ms. Aparjita Sahani, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal with Mr. Tushar
Gupta and Mr. Samarth Chaudhari,
Advocates for Revenue.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey,
Advocate for UOI.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 6486/2022 & connected matters Page 1 of 5
21:58:08
79
+ W.P.(C) 6492/2022 & CM APPLs.19682-19683/2022
SHRUTEE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gagan Kumar with Ms. Radhika
Dubey, Soami Dharmendra,
Ms. Nishtha Kaura, Mr. Karan
Nagrath, Mr. Varun Nagrath,
Ms. Aparjita Sahani, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal with Mr. Tushar
Gupta and Mr. Samarth Chaudhari,
Advocates for Revenue.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey,
Advocate for UOI.
80
+ W.P.(C) 6493/2022
SHRUTEE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gagan Kumar with Ms. Radhika
Dubey, Soami Dharmendra,
Ms. Nishtha Kaura, Mr. Karan
Nagrath, Mr. Varun Nagrath,
Ms. Aparjita Sahani, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal with Mr. Tushar
Gupta and Mr. Samarth Chaudhari,
Advocates for Revenue.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey,
Advocate for UOI.
% Date of Decision: 25th April, 2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
Signing Date:26.04.2022 W.P.(C) 6486/2022 & connected matters Page 2 of 5
21:58:08
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the assessment
orders dated 28th March, 2022 and 31st March, 2022 passed under Section
147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act')
for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 as well
as the penalty notices issued under Section 274 of the Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned orders
have been passed without following the principle of natural justice and in
violation of Section 144B of the Act as no opportunity of hearing was
granted to the petitioner despite a specific request having been made under
Section 144B(vii) of the Act.
3. In support of his submission, he relies on the decision of this court in
Sanjay Aggarwal vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (2021)
436 ITR 180 and Bharat Aluminum Company Ltd v. Union of India,
W.P.(C) 14528/2021 dated 14th January, 2022.
4. Issue notice.
5. Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents. He states that the present writ petitions are not maintainable as
the petitioner has an alternative effective remedy by filing an appeal.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:58:08
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
that the issue involved in the present writ petitions are no longer res integra.
This Court in Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.
(supra) has held that the use of the expression "may" in Section 144B(7)(vii)
is not decisive. Where a discretion is conferred upon a quasi-judicial
authority whose decision has civil consequences, the word "may" which
denotes discretion should be construed to mean a command. Consequently,
requirement of giving an assessee a reasonable opportunity of personal
hearing is mandatory. It was further held that the classification made by the
Respondent between the matters involving disputed questions of fact and
questions of law by way of the Circular dated 23rd November, 2020 is not
legally sustainable.
7. Accordingly, the impugned assessment orders dated 28th March, 2022
and 31st March, 2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of
the Act for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18
are violative of principle of natural justice and Section 144B(7)(vii) of the
Act.
8. It is settled law that when there is a violation of principle of natural
justice, the availability of an appellate remedy does not operate as a bar to
the maintainability of the writ petition.
9. Consequently, the impugned Assessment orders, Demand notices and
Penalty notices are quashed and the matters are remanded back to the
Respondents for passing fresh orders in accordance with law after giving an
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:58:08
10. In view of the above, the present writ petitions and applications are
disposed of. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
MANMOHAN, J
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
APRIL 25, 2022
AS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KRISHNA BHOJ
21:58:08
