1975 (11) TMI 157 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the finding that the sales made to Messrs. Keshavji Hirji are not genuine is contrary to the rules of natural justice, arbitrary, perverse, and illegal?

Analysis of Judgment:

Issue 1: Violation of Natural Justice
The applicants contended that there was a clear violation of the rules of natural justice by the Deputy Commissioner in passing his order as they were not given any opportunity to cross-examine Keshavji. The applicants had expressly desired to cross-examine all the dealers, including Keshavji, in their letter dated 9th April, 1956, and reiterated this request in their reply to the questionnaire issued by the Additional Collector. Despite this, the Deputy Commissioner did not offer Keshavji for cross-examination. The court noted that the principles of natural justice require that if a previous statement of a person is intended to be used as evidence against a party, it must be made available to that party, and a fair opportunity must be given to explain or comment on it. The denial of an opportunity to cross-examine Keshavji amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Issue 2: Non-Disclosure of Evidence
The applicants argued that there was a violation of natural justice as the statement made by Keshavji before the Personal Assistant to the Collector and his letter dated 24th November, 1952, were neither shown to them nor were copies provided. The Deputy Commissioner relied on these documents to reach an adverse conclusion against the applicants. The court held that the Deputy Commissioner should have disclosed the transcript of Keshavji's statement and his letter, excluding only those portions that were not fit for disclosure in the public interest. The failure to do so rendered the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal bad in law.

Issue 3: Perverse Findings
The applicants contended that the findings of the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal were perverse and violated the principles of natural justice as no reasons were given for relying on Keshavji's statement and letter and the lack of entries in his rojmel, in preference to the evidence tendered by the applicants. The court observed that the Deputy Commissioner and the Tribunal had not made any serious attempt to sift the evidence or test the truth of Keshavji's statements. The evidence provided by the applicants, including affidavits and books of account, was rejected without proper examination. The court found the approach of the Deputy Commissioner to be thoroughly unfair and violative of the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the finding that the sales made to Messrs. Keshavji Hirji were not genuine was contrary to the rules of natural justice, arbitrary, perverse, and illegal. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative. The respondent was directed to pay the applicants a sum of Rs. 1,500 as the quantified costs of the reference.

Costs:
The court directed the respondent to pay the applicants Rs. 1,500 as the quantified costs of the reference.

Reference Answered in the Affirmative.