1994 (4) TMI 374 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Opportunity of being heard under section 34 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963.
2. Reasonableness of opportunity of being heard.
3. Adequacy of opportunity of being heard before the Deputy Commissioner.
4. Tribunal's duty as the highest fact-finding authority.

Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a tax revision case under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, for the assessment year 1985-86. The petitioner, a registered dealer, challenged the order of the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing their appeal under section 39 of the Act. The main contention was the lack of a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the appeal process before the Deputy Commissioner, as required by sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Act.

The Court analyzed the concept of "reasonable opportunity of being heard" under the Act. It emphasized that two primary requisites must exist: an opportunity must be made available, and it must be reasonable. The Court noted that the petitioner's representative had attended several hearing dates before the Deputy Commissioner, but the appeal was not heard due to various reasons. The Court accepted the affidavit filed by the representative as reflective of the correct state of affairs regarding the hearings and adjournments.

The Court highlighted that the statutory right of being heard should not be defeated by procedural issues or whims of authorities. It emphasized that the opportunity for hearing should be effective and adequate, not illusory. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal without proper examination of the facts was criticized. The Court found that the Tribunal failed to consider the affidavit filed by the petitioner's representative, leading to a denial of the statutory right of hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh decision after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner-firm.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the tax revision case, holding that the petitioner-firm did not receive a proper opportunity of being heard as required by law. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring that statutory rights, including the right to be heard, are upheld in administrative proceedings under the Act.