For vs For
2021 Latest Caselaw 716 Tri

                                  Page 1 of 2




                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                              W.A. No.313/2021

For Appellant(s)                : Mr. A. Pal, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)               : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.,

Mr. S. Saha, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

Order 13/07/2021 (Akil Kureshi, C.J.)

The petitioner has set up a clear case of no notice before

assessment and non-service of the order of assessment in the petition itself.

The respondents have merely stated in the reply that the notices were issued

but the petitioner did not participate in the assessment. This is not good

enough. If the case of the respondents is that the notices were served on the

petitioner, they must state so and show the proof thereof. Likewise if the case

of the respondents is that the order of assessment was served to the petitioner,

the same must also be stated and proved. The suggestion of the learned

Government Advocate that the petitioner had not filed the returns is not

sufficient to enable the Assessment Officer to frame assessment, pass

judgment or otherwise without a notice.

List the matter on 27.07.2021. In the meantime, respondents to

file additional reply if so desired.

(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (AKIL KURESHI), CJ

Pulak