Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Natural Justice - Petitioner

    Uploaded by

    Riya Nitharwal
    18 views3 pages
    The assessment order passed against the assessee is in violation of principles of natural justice for three reasons: 1. No opportunity for a personal hearing was provided to the assessee, despite a specific request being made. Past court precedents have established this as a breach of natural justice. 2. The assessment order by the assessing officer was not a "reasoned decision" as it did not refer to the assessee's submissions or provide any reasons relied upon. A reasoned decision is required to avoid arbitrariness and maintain fairness. 3. An order passed in violation of natural justice principles is void. As no personal hearing was granted and it was not a reasoned decision, the assessment order is

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Natural justice- petitioner

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The assessment order passed against the assessee is in violation of principles of natural justice for three reasons: 1. No opportunity for a personal hearing was provided to the assessee, despite a specific request being made. Past court precedents have established this as a breach of natural justice. 2. The assessment order by the assessing officer was not a "reasoned decision" as it did not refer to the assessee's submissions or provide any reasons relied upon. A reasoned decision is required to avoid arbitrariness and maintain fairness. 3. An order passed in violation of natural justice principles is void. As no personal hearing was granted and it was not a reasoned decision, the assessment order is

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    18 views3 pages

    Natural Justice - Petitioner

    Uploaded by

    Riya Nitharwal
    The assessment order passed against the assessee is in violation of principles of natural justice for three reasons: 1. No opportunity for a personal hearing was provided to the assessee, despite a specific request being made. Past court precedents have established this as a breach of natural justice. 2. The assessment order by the assessing officer was not a "reasoned decision" as it did not refer to the assessee's submissions or provide any reasons relied upon. A reasoned decision is required to avoid arbitrariness and maintain fairness. 3. An order passed in violation of natural justice principles is void. As no personal hearing was granted and it was not a reasoned decision, the assessment order is

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    [3] THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CONDUCTED WAS IN BREACH OF

    PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

    It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the assessment proceeding that was
    concluded without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee was in breach of
    principle of natural justice due to reasons mentioned herein. Firstly, no opportunity of personal
    hearing was granted to the assessee.

    3.1 NO OPPORTUNITY OF PERSONAL HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE.

    It is humbly submitted that Right of fair hearing is of fundamental importance and most basic
    principle of natural justice as expressed by Lord Hewart, “It is not merely of some importance,
    but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and
    undoubtedly be seem to be done.” This principle is a ‘sine qua non’ of every civilized society.

    In the case of Ritnand Balved Education Foundation v NFAC, it was contended that the revenue
    was obliged to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner, if a request was made in that behalf and
    in this case a specific request was made by the petitioner and therefore, assessment order passed
    without granting opportunity of hearing is bad in law.  The HC observed that since the statute
    itself makes the provision for grant of personal hearing, the revenue cannot veer away from the
    same and hence, the same order was set aside by the HC. Same view was taken in Satia
    Industries Limited v NFAC. Same is our case where the Assessing officer passed the draft
    assessment order dated 18th December, 2021 without taking into consideration the claim of the
    assessee and not adhering to assessee’s request of opportunity of personal hearing and hence the
    same was liable to be quashed on ground of being null and void. Reliance is placed on the
    decision in the case of Spaceman v. Plumstead District Board of Works, the failure to conform to
    the principle of natural justice of audi alterim partem would make a judicial or quasi-judicial
    order void. In the same case Lord Selborn said:- "There could be no decision within the meaning
    of the statute if there is anything done contrary to the essence of justice. In R.B Shreeram Durga

    Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission , it was held “Order passed in
    violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity.” Futher, The settled position in law is
    that where exercise of a power results in civil consequences to citizens, unless the statute
    specifically rules out the application of natural justice, the rules of natural justice would apply,
    including the right to personal hearing. Denial of such opportunity is not in consonance with the
    scheme of the Rule of Law governing our society, Raghunath Thakur vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
    In fact, the opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision is considered to be a basic
    requirement in Court proceedings.

    When the authority is required to observe the principle of natural justice in passing an order but
    fails to do so, the general judicial opinion is that the order is void. In England, in the case of
    Ridge v. Baldwin, the court held the decision of the authority void on the ground of the breach of
    the rule of fair hearing. In circumstances where procedural fairness has not been afforded to the
    aggrieved, the decision that arose from that procedure may be void for lack of natural
    justice/procedural fairness as relied upon in the case of McCleverty v Australian Karting Assoc
    Ltd. The right to be heard is a fundamental principle of the requirements of procedural fairness
    and goes to the heart of the fair administration of justice. Futher, In Ridge v. Baldwin and
    Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission the House of Lords in England has made it
    clear that breach of natural justice nullifies the order made in breach. If that is so then the order
    made in violation of the principles of natural justice was of no value.

    3.1 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IS “NO REASONED


    DECISION”.

    It is humbly submitted that the order which is to be passed against the other party must be a
    “speaking order”. It is the other important principle of natural justice which should be fulfilled. It
    is necessary with a view to exclude the possibility of arbitrariness in the action. The other aspect
    is that, the party against whom an order is passed, must know the reason passing such order. As
    held in the case of D.K Agrawal v. Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India
    Recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice and every judicial/quasi judicial order must
    be supported by reasons to be recorded in writing. The person who is adversely affected wants to
    know as to why his submissions have not been accepted. Unless an adjudicatory body is required
    to give reasons and make findings of fact indicating the evidence upon which it relied, there is no
    way of knowing whether the concerned body genuinely applied itself to and evaluated the
    arguments and the evidence advanced at the hearing. A reasoned decision, hence will have the
    appearance of fairness and justice. However, same was not done in our case because neither the
    assessing officer referred to the submissions of the assessee dated 12 th December, 2021 nor the
    AO provide any reasons, on which he relied for the passing the draft assessment order dated 18 th
    December, 2021. Futher, in Woolcombers of India Ltd. v. Woolcombers Workers Union it was
    held that “giving of reasons in support of their conclusions by judicial and quasi-judicial
    authorities when exercising initial jurisdiction is essential for various reasons. First, it is
    calculated to prevent unconscious unfairness or arbitrariness in reaching the conclusions.
    Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear
    to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who
    read them. So, it is necessary to emphasise that judicial and quasi-judicial authorities should
    always give reasons in support of their conclusions.”
    Lastly relying upon the decision of State of West Bengal v. Atul Krishna Shaw wherein it was
    held that failure to give reasons does not instill public confidence in the correctness of
    the decisions rendered by the adjudicatory bodies. Giving of reasons is an essential element of
    administration of justice. A right to reason is, therefore, an indispensable part of sound system of
    judicial review. Reasoned decision is not only for the purpose of showing that the citizen is
    receiving justice, but also a valid discipline for the Tribunal itself. Therefore, statement
    of reasons is one of the essentials of justice.

    Therefore, it is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that assessment proceeding is liable
    to be quashed on the ground of violation of natural justice as no personal hearing was granted
    to the assessee neither the order of AO is based on reasoned decision.

    You might also like