Assessment order remanded for reconsideration upon payment of 50% of the disputed tax.

The petitioner challenged the assessment order dated 13 February 2024, bearing Ref. No. ZD330224068249E, relating to FY 2018–19, on the ground that it violated the principles of natural justice

The statutory period for filing an appeal had expired

During the writ proceedings, the petitioner agreed to remit 50% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand of the matter

The respondent accepted notice through Government Counsel

Whether the impugned assessment order should be interfered with on the ground of an alleged breach of the principles of natural justice, notwithstanding the expiry of the appellate limitation period?

Whether the matter should be remanded for reconsideration subject to the petitioner’s payment of 50% of the disputed tax demand?

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine the challenge based on alleged violation of natural justice

Although the appellate limitation period had expired, the Court adopted a conditional remand approach, requiring payment of 50% of the disputed tax demand before reopening the assessment

The order also reflects the principle that, upon remand, the assessee must receive a reasonable opportunity of being heard before a fresh assessment order is passed

No statutory provision or judicial precedent was expressly cited in the order.

The Court did not decide the merits of the tax demand.

Given the petitioner’s allegation of denial of natural justice and the fact that the ordinary appellate limitation had expired, it accepted the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 50% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for exercising writ jurisdiction and granting a remand

The Court therefore set aside the impugned order conditionally and directed the respondent to reconsider the matter after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

The conditional payment requirement balanced the petitioner’s procedural grievance against the revenue’s interest, particularly since the statutory appeal period was no longer available.

The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and issue a fresh order within three months from the date of remittance

Any bank-account attachment relating to the impugned order was directed to stand raised upon fulfilment of the payment condition

The connected miscellaneous petitions were closed, with no order as to costs