2009 (2) TMI 780 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Ex parte revisional order challenged - Held that - In this case one Mr. Guha, learned advocate, was engaged in attending a case at the Sales Tax Building at Salt Lake and that is why he was late in attending the case before respondent No. 3 on September 9, 2008. As such, it is a fact that due to engagement in one case at Sales Tax Building at Salt Lake, the learned advocate of the petitioner could not appear before respondent No. 3 on September 9, 2008. There is no note in the record that none appeared for the petitioner during the office hour and hence the hearing was closed for passing order. Rather the order was actually passed on the following date, i.e., on September 10, 2008. As such, it would be fair and reasonable if the petitioner was allowed one more opportunity to appear before respondent No. 3 of being heard. Accordingly, we set aside the order dated September 10, 2008 of respondent No. 3 with a direction to allow the petitioner one more opportunity of being heard.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging ex parte revisional order dated September 10, 2008 passed by Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes for four quarters ending on March 31, 2003.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner, a company registered under State and Central Sales Tax Acts, challenged the assessment order dated June 30, 2005, which levied purchase tax and penalty. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, who modified the assessment order reducing the purchase tax. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a revision application before the Additional Commissioner, who confirmed the order. The petitioner alleged denial of natural justice due to an ex parte order. The petitioner's advocate argued that the estimation of unregistered purchases was unreasonable and arbitrary. The State Representative opposed, claiming sufficient opportunities were given for a hearing. The Tribunal reviewed the case records and noted that the petitioner's advocate missed the last hearing due to prior engagement, leading to the ex parte order. The Tribunal found it fair to grant the petitioner another opportunity to be heard, setting aside the previous order.

The judgment highlighted the importance of ensuring parties have a reasonable opportunity to be heard before making decisions. Despite the multiple adjournments and opportunities given to the petitioner, the Tribunal recognized that the advocate's absence on the last hearing date was due to a valid reason, justifying the need for another chance to present their case. This decision upheld the principles of natural justice and fair procedure in administrative proceedings, emphasizing the right to a fair hearing. The Tribunal's ruling aimed to rectify the procedural lapse caused by the ex parte order, demonstrating a commitment to upholding due process and providing equal opportunities for all parties involved in tax assessment disputes.