9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (6) TMI 573 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax
Issues:
Challenge to notice and order under Sales Tax Act, 1947; Maintainability of writ petition; Validity of suo motu revision order; Right to appeal against revision order; Violation of natural justice in passing judgment. Analysis: The judgment under consideration involves a challenge to a notice and order issued under the Sales Tax Act, 1947. The writ petitioner questioned the validity of the notice and order, claiming exemption from sales tax for their products. However, during the initial hearing, the writ petitioner was not represented, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition by a learned single Judge who deemed the order of assessment as appealable and revisable under the Act, thus ruling the writ petition as not maintainable. Regarding the validity of the suo motu revision order, the appellant's counsel argued that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes was akin to an order by the Commissioner of Taxes, eliminating the need for appeal or revision under the Act, 1947. On the other hand, the respondents contended that an appeal lies to the Board of Revenue against such an order under section 31-A of the Act, 1947. In a crucial observation, the Court emphasized the importance of natural justice, noting that the writ petitioner was not heard during the initial judgment and order. In light of this violation and to ensure justice, the Court set aside the previous judgment, remanding the writ petition for a fresh decision by the learned single Judge, with a directive to afford both parties a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Court stressed the need for justice to be seen to have been done, indicating a commitment to upholding fair legal processes. Consequently, the judgment and order dated March 29, 2000, were overturned, and the writ petition was remanded for fresh consideration. The Court instructed the learned single Judge to dispose of the matter within one month, considering the age of the petition. The parties agreed to list the case for hearing on a specified date, and the writ appeal was disposed of without costs, with directions for the registry to act in accordance with the judgment and order.
|
