The Court held that a final tax assessment order passed without addressing objections constitutes a violation of natural justice and is not a speaking order, permitting no immediate appeal.
Writ of Certiorari allowed; impugned order quashed; matter remitted for fresh speaking order within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.04.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU
W.P.No.9005 of 2017 and W.M.P.No.9920 of 2017
Rajeev B.Mehta
Partner,
M/s.R.J.Mehta & Company,
No.32, Sembudoss Street,
George town,
Chennai - 600 001 ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Rippon building,
Chennai - 600 003.
2. The Zonal Officer,
Zone-V (Royapuram)(i/c)
Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.62, Basinbridge Road,
Old Washermenpet
Chennai - 600 021. ...Respondents
Prayer: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent in the impugned Final assessment Order vide Notice no.10/16-110/23082 dated 16.03.2017 and to quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.B.R.Menon For Respondents : Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, Standing Counsel O R D E R
Mr.T.C.Gopalakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents and by consent of the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
subject matter property, such authority is bound to consider the objections raised, at the time of passing the final order of assessment and such consideration must explicitly and evidently be made available on the face of the reading of the order of assessment itself. If an occupier/owner has failed to make any objection, even then, it has to be stated so, in the final order of assessment. In any event, it must be a speaking order of assessment. The impugned order does not appear to be a speaking order, except to the extent that the same was issued in a printed format after filling up the blank columns with some figures. It is further to be noted that the compliance of principles of natural justice, in its strict sense, does not stop simply with an issuance of notice before passing an order of assessment alone. On the other hand, such compliance of the said principle can said to have been achieved only when the objections given after such notice are considered by the authority and a detailed findings are given on those objections while passing the final order. Otherwise, it has to be treated that the authority has not followed the principles of natural justice in its strict sense. Such being the position, I do not think that the petitioner can be driven to the Appellate Forum to file an appeal as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents.
-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
3 issues framed by the court
whether a final assessment order constituted without considering the petitioner's objections is sustainable.
whether the impugned order complies with principles of natural justice by failing to be a speaking order.
whether the taxpayer can seek appellate relief when the order is vitiated by non-application of mind.
Rajeev B. Mehta
The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation
The Zonal Officer, Zone-V (Royapuram)
K. Ravichandrababu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
