2000 (8) TMI 1110 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to file monthly returns and pay tax.
2. Dishonored cheques issued towards tax dues.
3. Demand for security to protect the interest of revenue.
4. Cancellation of sales tax registration without personal hearing.
5. Availability of alternative remedy by way of revision.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Failure to file monthly returns and pay tax:
The petitioner, a dealer in petroleum products, failed to file monthly returns and pay tax for several months. This led the first respondent to issue a notice demanding security of Rs. 1 crore to protect the revenue's interest. The petitioner's inability to comply with this demand resulted in further notices and eventual cancellation of their sales tax registration.

2. Dishonored cheques issued towards tax dues:
The first respondent issued a notice dated 10.12.1996, stating that certain cheques issued by the petitioner towards tax dues had returned dishonored. This failure contributed to the demand for security and subsequent actions taken by the first respondent.

3. Demand for security to protect the interest of revenue:
Due to the petitioner's failure to file returns and dishonored cheques, the first respondent demanded a security of Rs. 1 crore. The petitioner did not comply, leading to further notices and the eventual cancellation of their registration under the local and Central Acts.

4. Cancellation of sales tax registration without personal hearing:
The petitioner argued that the cancellation of their registration was done without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, which is mandatory under Sec.23(9) of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act. The court noted that the prescribed authority must give an opportunity of being heard before making any order under Sub-sec.(8) of Sec.23. The first respondent failed to provide this personal hearing, rendering the cancellation order liable to be quashed.

5. Availability of alternative remedy by way of revision:
The respondents argued that the petitioners had already filed a revision before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Pondicherry, and thus, the writ petitions were not proper and legal. However, the court held that the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution, especially when there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned orders of the first respondent due to the failure to provide a personal hearing as mandated by Sec.23(9) of the Pondicherry General Sales Tax Act. The first respondent was directed to restore the proceedings and pass fresh orders after affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard. The writ petitions were allowed, and no costs were imposed. All writ miscellaneous petitions were closed.