AGK AGK AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2244 OF 2008 M/s.Hindustan Unilever LImited ..Petitioner V/s. D.A. Sheldekar Transfer Pricing Officer-I(4) & Others ..Respondents Mr.Parag Pardiwala with Mr.Shailesh Thakkar i/by Mulla & Mulla & C.B. & C. for the petitioner. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 22ND OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 7-3-2008 passed under Section 92-CA(3) by the Transfer Pricing Officer - I(4), Mumbai determining the transfer price and directing the assessment officer to make addition of Rs.362,29,41,000/- in the income of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner against that order, which is impugned before us is that the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 21-2-2008. He was to file reply by 29-2-2008. The petitioner filed his reply, but in the reply it was stated that due to short time that has been allowed for filing reply, the petitioner could not place all the documents on which the petitioner wish to rely upon and could not submit his complete reply. It was also stated that considering the nature of the enquiry and order that was proposed to be made, the petitioner should be given personal hearing. 3. Perusal of the order sheet maintained by the authority dated 29-2-2008 shows that on that date written submissions were filed and the order sheet states that the matter was discussed with the representative of the petitioner. However, it is common ground that personal hearing was not given and the petitioner was also not permitted to file additional reply and produce additional documents. 4. After hearing the matter on last occasion, we had asked the learned counsel for the respondents to take instructions whether in this view of the matter, the matter can be reheard by the authority. The learned counsel for the respondents, after taking instructions stated that the respondents is willing to give personal hearing to the petitioner and will pass fresh order after granting personal hearing. The learned counsel further stated that according to the respondents, it is not necessary to give petitioner an opportunity to file additional reply and change his stand and file additional documents. 5. In our opinion, the submission made on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner at the rehearing of the matter should not be given an opportunity to file additional reply, wherein he may change his stand or take alternate stand or file additional reply, has no substance because on the final order being set aside the matter becomes at large and, therefore, in our opinion it will be in the interest of natural justice that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file additional reply and raise contentions that may be available to him in law. If the law permits the petitioner to change his stand, in our opinion, neither the department nor this Court would be justified in denying the petitioner an opportunity to change his stand. Any contention that the petitioner may raise have to be dealt with in accordance with law and if according to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to change his stand in law, the respondents can make an order accordingly but the respondents is not justified in saying that the petitioner should not be permitted to change his stand though he may be entitled to do so in law. 6. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondents, recorded above and the observations made by us, in our opinion, following order would meet the ends of justice. 7. The order dated 7-3-2008 impugned in this petition is set aside. Within a period of four weeks from today, the petitioner shall file his additional reply and shall produce additional documents on which the petitioner wishes to rely. The Respondent No.1 shall thereafter fix a date for final hearing of the matter and shall proceed to hear the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice and shall thereafter make fresh order in accordance with law. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly with no order as to costs. D.K. DESHMUKH, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.