Quashed

Chalet Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Dec 2015WP/55/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an unreasoned assessment order passed in violation of natural justice. Proceedings were restored to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh speaking order after a hearing and opportunity to inspect the record, specifically addressing the time-bar objection.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order quashed; proceedings restored to Assessing Officer for fresh speaking order after hearing and inspection of record.

Chalet Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WPL.3539.2015.911.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 3539 OF 2015

¶4

Chalet Hotels Private Limited } Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra } and Ors. } Respondents

¶5

Mr. V. Sridharan – Senior Advocate with Mr. C. B. Thakar, Mr. Rahul Thakar and Mr. Aniket Ghosh i/b. M/s. C. B. Thakar and Co. for the Petitioner.

¶6

Mr. B. B. Sharma – AGP for State.

¶7

CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATED :- DECEMBER 22, 2015

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges an assessment order dated 30^th September, 2015. One of the grounds on which this order is challenged is that in passing the same, the principles of natural justice have been violated. Apart from the fact that it is an unreasoned order, the Petitioner urges that it has not been given an opportunity to raise objections, particularly that the proceedings are barred by limitation.

¶10

Page 1 of 2

¶11

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶12

WPL.3539.2015.911.doc

¶13

After having heard both sides at some length, it is agreed that the assessment order impugned in this Petition be quashed and set aside. We accordingly quash and set aside the same. We restore the proceedings to the file of the Assessing Officer, who shall now pass a fresh order after hearing the Petitioner and allowing it, prior to the hearing, an opportunity to inspect the record. The authority must pass a speaking order uninfluenced by the impugned order and any observations therein. The parties agreed to appear before the Assessing Officer on 11^th January, 2016 and the fresh order shall be passed within a period of four months from the date of appearance. The Petitioner will co-operate in early disposal of the proceedings by not seeking unnecessary adjournments and producing all record in its possession.

¶14

We clarify that the Assessing Officer shall take up the proceedings as if he is empowered to or otherwise to determine and decide the quantum of tax as on 30^th September, 2015. We specifically keep open the objection of the Petitioner on time bar/limitation. The Assessing Officer, in the speaking order, must deal with the objection of the Petitioner with regard to time bar. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶15

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶16

Page 2 of 2

¶17

J.V.Salunke,PA

Chalet Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chalet Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Development Credit Bank Limited Vs Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property,New Delhi

M/S. J and J Precision Industries Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S. Excel Production Audio Visuals Pvt. and Anr. Vs the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

Shivbharan Sant Prasad Sharma Vs the Deputy Collector, S.R.A. and 6 Ors.

Smt. Rajanatai Sureshrao Padole and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra