2001 (9) TMI 10 - HC - Income Tax

Imports And Exports (Control) Act, 1947 Principles of Natural justice - Even if grant of an opportunity is not specifically provided for it has to be read into the unoccupied interstices and unless specifically excluded the principles of natural justice have to be applied. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or Rules spelling out the need to hear the party whose rights and interests are likely to be affected, the requirement to follow fair procedure before taking a decision must be read into the statute, unless the statute provides otherwise. Reference is accordingly disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the third proviso to section 4M of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 regarding the requirement of granting a personal hearing before exercising discretion to waive a penalty.

Detailed Analysis:
The judgment of the High Court of Delhi was delivered by Arijit Pasayat, CJ, regarding the divergence of views on whether the third proviso to section 4M of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 necessitates the grant of a personal hearing before waiving a penalty. A reference to a larger Bench was made due to conflicting opinions. In the case of Amrutlal Ganpatram Panchal v. Union of India, it was observed that no statutory requirement mandates granting an opportunity, while in Jesus Sales Corporation v. Union of India, it was held that an opportunity must be given before deciding on the application of the proviso. The judgment emphasized the importance of natural justice principles in quasi-judicial proceedings.

The court heard the arguments presented by Mr. G. L Rawal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite the petition becoming infructuous over time. It was highlighted that while a cursory reading of a previous apex court decision might suggest no universal requirement for a personal hearing, the specific factual context of each case must be considered. The judgment stressed that decisions should be viewed based on their specific circumstances rather than as universally applicable principles.

The judgment elaborated on the significance of natural justice in the administration of justice, emphasizing that rules of natural justice are not codified canons but principles inherent in the conscience of humanity. The principle of audi alteram partem, ensuring that no one should be condemned unheard, was underscored as a fundamental aspect of natural justice. The requirement for a precise notice and adequate opportunity for representation before passing an adverse order was deemed essential to prevent injustice.

The court delved into the evolving concept of natural justice, noting that even administrative orders with civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The judgment cited various definitions of natural justice by eminent judges and highlighted the importance of fair play and impartiality in decision-making processes. The principles of natural justice, including nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem, were discussed as fundamental elements of a fair hearing.

Furthermore, the judgment emphasized that even if a statute is silent on the grant of an opportunity, the principles of natural justice must be read into the legislative framework unless explicitly excluded. The court concluded by disposing of the reference, considering the petition infructuous due to the passage of time, and refrained from remanding the matter to the Division Bench. The judgment reiterated the paramount importance of upholding natural justice principles in quasi-judicial proceedings to ensure fairness and transparency in decision-making processes.