The Allahabad High Court, while quashing the enhanced assessment order regarding house tax passed by the authorities held that by practising undue haste that essential requirement of law that ensures fairness in the proceedings and also allows this Court to test the correctness of the decision-making process that may be put to question, has been violated.
Brief Facts:
A notice regarding the enhancement of house tax was issued by the Department on 14.03.2024, fixing 16.03.2024 as the date for the hearing. The notice was served upon an employee of the petitioner on 15.03.2024. On the date of the hearing, the petitioner appeared before the tax Superintendent and sought 20 days adjournment. On 21.03.2024, an ex-parte order was passed substantially enhancing the assessment of house tax for the petitioner's property. The order recorded that 18.03.2024 was fixed as the date of hearing and the petitioner did not appear on the said date. The petitioner filed the present petition challenging the ex-parte order stating that no hearing took place on 18.03.2024.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that even though the application for adjournment was not rejected, fixing of 18.03.2024 as the next date shows declining of the adjournment sought and further since one day was provided to the petitioner to appear for the hearing, 20 days adjournment sought by the petitioner was not unreasonable.
Further, the court stated that once the opportunity of hearing is mandated by the law, it reassures the notice that he would deal with it fairly and in accordance with the law and the issuance of notice is not an empty formality to be completed only to protect the record from a technical vice of violation of rules of natural justice. Issuance of notice and giving an opportunity to respond to the notice is a real safeguard against the arbitrary and capricious exercise of power by quasi-judicial authorities. It runs parallel to the obligation of the quasi-judicial authorities to confront the noticee with adverse material and therefore the likely reasoning that he has to meet for which such notice has been issued. Therefore, it was incumbent on the respondent authority to have issued a proper notice to the petitioner disclosing all adverse material/facts that were sought to be relied against it. Thereupon sufficient time should have been granted to the petitioner to articulate and submit its reply thereto. Only when such notice and its reply were complete did, the effective hearing may have arisen by giving due notice/time to the petitioner to participate in the same.
The court stated that in the present case, by practising undue haste that essential requirement of law that ensures fairness in the proceedings and also allows this Court to test the correctness of the decision-making process that may be put to question, has been violated.
The decision of the Court:
The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to issue a proper notice if they wanted to proceed with the assessment and to give the petitioner 2 weeks' time to file a reply. Thereafter, advanced notice of 15 days is given to the petitioner for a personal hearing.
Case Title: Hotel President Through Its Partner and Anr. vs State of U.P and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Donadi Ramesh
Case No.: WRIT TAX No. - 520 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Prabhakar Awasthi, Surya Bhan Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C., Vibhu Rai
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
