Impugned assessment order set aside and remanded subject to verification of 25% tax payment or recovery.

The petitioner, Peenies Enterprises, challenged the assessment order dated 18 June 2025, bearing reference No. ZD3306251874735, for the tax period 2022–23, alleging breach of the principles of natural justice.

The petitioner contended that it had made a 10% pre-deposit while filing the appeal and that the entire tax demand had additionally been recovered from its electronic liability ledger.

The respondents accepted notice through the learned Government Counsel (Tax).

Whether the impugned assessment order was liable to be set aside on the ground of an alleged breach of the principles of natural justice.

Whether the matter should be remanded for reconsideration subject to verification that at least 25% of the tax demand had been remitted or recovered.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the impugned assessment order and address the alleged violation of natural justice.

The governing principle applied was that an order affected by a breach of natural justice may be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration after providing the affected party a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Court further made the relief conditional upon verification and confirmation that not less than 25% of the tax demand had been remitted or recovered.

The Court noted the petitioner’s allegation of breach of natural justice and took into account the submission that a 10% pre-deposit had been made and that the entire tax demand had allegedly been recovered through the electronic liability ledger.

Since the asserted recovery required verification, the Court did not grant an unconditional final relief.

Instead, it considered it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter, subject to confirmation that at least 25% of the tax demand had been remitted or recovered.

The remand preserved the petitioner’s right to a reasonable opportunity before a fresh order was passed.

Upon such confirmation, the respondents were directed to reconsider the matter, provide the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, and issue a fresh order within three months from the date of confirming the recovery.

No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.