Assessee’s Confusion Over Which SCN to Reply: Madras HC Grants Two Weeks to File Response and Directs Personal Hearing
The Court held that the confusion was unfounded as the second notice referred to the first.
Showcause – Notice – HC – Taxscan
Showcause – Notice – HC – Taxscan
The Madras High Court held that the assessee’s claimed confusion over two show cause notices, one from a faceless officer and another from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer(JAO) who clearly referenced the first, was unfounded and granted two weeks to file a reply while directing a fourteen day notice for personal hearing before finalizing the matter.
GI.Retail Pvt. Ltd,petitioner-assessee,submitted that the faceless AO had already issued a show cause notice on 28.02.2025. While those proceedings were still ongoing, the case was suddenly transferred to the JAO, who issued another show cause notice on 12.03.2025 without giving any reason or prior intimation.
The petitioner stated that this caused confusion about which notice to respond to. Although a request was made on 19.03.2025 for a month’s time to reply, only two working days were granted, and a personal hearing was fixed for 24.03.2025 on the ground that the case would become time-barred on 31.03.2025.
Get a Complete Kit of Essential Books for Daily Practice, Click Here
Due to the lack of proper procedure and jurisdiction, the petitioner approached the Court seeking to quash the notice dated 12.03.2025.
The respondent counsel stated that a show cause notice was issued on 28.02.2025 by the Faceless Assessment Officer. On the same day, the case was transferred to the JAO, who issued another notice on 12.03.2025.
The second notice referred to the earlier one, so the petitioner’s claim of confusion was said to be unfounded. The respondent counsel argued that the writ petition had no merit and should be dismissed.
A single member bench Justice Krishnan Ramasamy reviewed the submissions and records. It noted that the first show cause notice was issued by the Faceless AO on 28.02.2025, but the case was then transferred to the JAO, who issued another notice on 12.03.2025 referring to the earlier notice.
Know How to Investigate Books of Accounts and Other Documents, Click Here
The bench said the petitioner’s confusion about which notice to reply to was unfounded.
The High Court did not accept the writ petition but allowed the petitioner two weeks to file a reply to the 12.03.2025 notice. It directed the AO to consider the reply, give a 14-day notice for a personal hearing, and then decide the case according to the law.
The bench noted the petitioner’s request for urgent orders since the final order deadline was 31.03.2025 but asked the respondent counsel to inform the department immediately. The Court also said the extended time limit could be used if a stay was needed.
In short,the petition was disposed.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
