2003 (8) TMI 498 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice dated March 3, 1983, issued by the Sales Tax Officer.
2. Legitimacy of the appellate authority's orders for the assessment years 1975-76, 1977-78, and 1978-79.
3. Presumption of regularity of official acts.
4. Admissibility of certified copies of public documents.
5. Requirement for the department to produce specific evidence or affidavits.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the notice dated March 3, 1983, issued by the Sales Tax Officer:
The petitioner challenged the notice directing the deposit of Rs. 1,39,478.78, claiming it rejected the refund adjustment as directed by the appellate authority. The impugned notice was issued on the grounds that the appellate orders were allegedly forged and fabricated. The court examined the legitimacy of these claims.

2. Legitimacy of the appellate authority's orders for the assessment years 1975-76, 1977-78, and 1978-79:
The petitioner argued that the appeals were decided by the appellate authority on May 22, 1982, and certified copies of the orders were dispatched. The department contended that the appeals were never heard or decided, and the orders were forged. The court noted that the department failed to produce any evidence to support its claim of forgery. The affidavits from Shri Vir Pal Sharma and Shri Onkar Singh, who confirmed the authenticity of the appellate orders, were pivotal in establishing the legitimacy of the orders.

3. Presumption of regularity of official acts:
The court referred to Section 114, illustration (g) of the Evidence Act, 1872, which presumes that official acts have been performed regularly. This presumption can only be rebutted by appropriate evidence. The department's failure to provide such evidence meant the presumption stood in favor of the petitioner. The court cited multiple precedents, including Gopal Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Maharaja Pratap Singh Bahadur v. Thakur Manmohan Dey, to reinforce this principle.

4. Admissibility of certified copies of public documents:
Certified copies of public documents, such as the appellate orders, are admissible under Sections 76 and 77 of the Evidence Act. The court emphasized that these documents need not be proved by calling a witness. The affidavits and certified copies submitted by the petitioner were deemed sufficient to establish the authenticity of the appellate orders. The court cited cases like Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sundar Mal and Madamanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru Bojjappa to support this view.

5. Requirement for the department to produce specific evidence or affidavits:
The department's failure to produce an affidavit from Shri Mohd. Zafar, who allegedly verified the purchases during the appeals, led the court to draw an adverse inference against the department. The court noted that adverse inference is drawn when a party fails to produce evidence within its possession, as established in cases like T.S. Murugesam Pillai v. M.D. Gnana Sambandha Pandara Sannadhi and Union of India v. Mahadeolal Prabhu Dayal.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner successfully established that the appeals were heard and decided, and the certified copies of the orders were genuine. The department's failure to rebut the presumption of regularity and provide necessary evidence led to the quashing of the impugned notice dated March 3, 1983. The petition was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

← Previous Next →