The Karnataka High Court has held that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) ought to have waited till disposal of the rectification application before passing final Assessment Order.
The bench of Justice S.R.Krishna Kumar has observed that before passing of the final Assessment Order, the petitioner had filed a rectification application, which was pending before DRP, which is the subject matter of the final Assessment Order.
Background
The petitioner has challenged the assessment order. The petitioner submitted its reply, subsequent to which the respondent-department issued show-cause notice to which the petitioner also submitted a detailed response. It was followed by the draft assessment order to which the petitioner filed objections.
Since certain information relied upon by the department on the draft assessment order was not made available to the petitioner, the petitioner requested DRI to direct the department to furnish relevant information.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2005, requesting department to provide certain details on 08.03.2024 pursuant to which respondent No.2 furnished details on 23.04.2024 and the petitioner filed its statement before respondent No.4 on 07.06.2024. The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) issued directions.
The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order, filed a rectification application and also addressed a communication, requesting the respondent not to proceed further with final Assessment Order and to await disposal of the rectification application before passing the final Assessment Order.
The petitioner contended that despite pendency of the rectification application proceeded to pass the final Assessment order, which is illegal and arbitrary, passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the same along with the consequent demand notices and penalty notices deserve to be quashed.
Conclusion
The court directed the DRP to dispose of the rectification application submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity and hearing them in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: Mavenir Systems Private Limited Versus Assessment Unit
Case No.: WP No. 21709 of 2024
Date: 21/08/2024
Counsel For Petitioner: Tanmayee Rajkumar
Counsel For Respondent: E I Sanmathi
