CWP No. 4764 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.03.2009 (1) CWP No. 4764 of 2009 M/s Gupta Smelters Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents --- (2) CWP No. 4485 of 2009 M/s Sonia Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents -- (3) CWP No. 4549 of 2009 M/s D.D.Agro Industries Ltd. ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents -- (4) CWP No. 4632 of 2009 M/s Mahesh Chemicals & Allied Industries ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents -- CWP No. 4764 of 2009 [2] (5) CWP No. 4674 of 2009 M/s Ganesh Agro ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents --- (6) CWP No. 4692 of 2009 M/s P.R.Products ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents --- (7) CWP No. 4725 of 2009 M/s Shri Ram Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents --- (8) CWP No. 4741 of 2009 M/s Dee Kay Exports ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents --- (9) CWP No. 4744 of 2009 Haryana Agro Chemicals (India) ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents -- CWP No. 4764 of 2009 [3] (10) CWP No. 4750 of 2009 M/s Prabhat Fertilizer & Chemical Works ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents --- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners in all these petitions Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Sr.Standing Counsel for Indirect Taxes in all these petitions. ***** T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral) Issue notice of motion to the respondents. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, all these petitions have been heard together and shall stand disposed off by this common order. The solitary question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders of assessment are legally valid. Learned counsel for the parties submit that a similar question was examined in similar circumstances by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2659 of 2009 disposed of on 4.3.2009. A copy of the said order has also been placed on record for ready reference, perusal whereof would show that the order of assessment made by the Assessing Authority in the said petition was CWP No. 4764 of 2009 [4] quashed by us on the ground that the same had been made without notice to the assessee, hence in violation of the principles of natural justice. The position is no different in the present writ petitions also in which none of the orders under challenge was preceded by a notice or hearing to the assessee. We accordingly allow these writ petitions also,and quash the orders impugned in the same. The matter shall stand remitted back to the Assessing Authority with a direction that he shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law after affording to the petitioners in each one of these cases an opportunity of being heard. To avoid any delay in passing of fresh orders, we direct that the petitioners shall appear before the Assessing Authority concerned on 15.04.2009 at 10.00 A.M. We make it clear that in case the petitioner(s) or any one of them does not appear before the Assessing Authority on the date and time given by us, the Assessing Authority shall be free to make a fresh order without any further notice to the defaulting petitioner. We reserve liberty for the petitioners to raise all the questions of facts and law in connection with the proposed assessment which shall be examined by the Assessing Authority fairly and objectively while making fresh orders in these cases. No costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 26.03.2009 'ravinder'