2018 (4) TMI 1731 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Direction to Objection Hearing Authority to pass an order within six weeks from the date of filing of objections - HELD THAT - Learned counsel for the respondent states that he has no objection in case the time period for passing of speaking order is extended by a further period of six weeks. Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate states that this is required and necessary for objective and fair decision. Recording the aforesaid concession given by the counsel for the parties, time is extended by six weeks and the writ petition is disposed of. As already stated in order dated 21st February, 2018, the Objection Hearing Authority would pass a speaking order dealing with the objections and contentions of the petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved:
Extension of time for passing a speaking order by the Objection Hearing Authority.

Analysis:
The High Court of Delhi, comprising Mr. Sanjiv Khanna and Mr. Chander Shekhar, JJ., heard a writ petition listed in the supplementary list as per the Acting Chief Justice's directions. The proceedings before the Special Commissioner were to continue, with the petitioner's counsel indicating the filing of written submissions. The petitioner highlighted the hindrance caused by the six-week period for the Objection Hearing Authority to pass an order, given the extensive verification exercise required, especially concerning objectionable letters from authorities in Rajasthan and Haryana. The petitioner sought the summoning of the incorrect orders passed. In response, the respondent's counsel expressed no objection to extending the time period for passing a speaking order by an additional six weeks. This extension was deemed necessary for an objective and fair decision, as emphasized by Mr. Rajesh Jain, Advocate. Consequently, the court granted the extension and disposed of the writ petition, reiterating the requirement for the Objection Hearing Authority to issue a speaking order addressing the petitioner's objections and contentions within the extended timeframe.

This judgment primarily revolves around the extension of time granted for the Objection Hearing Authority to pass a speaking order, addressing objections and contentions raised by the petitioner. The court acknowledged the necessity for an adequate timeframe to conduct a thorough verification exercise, especially concerning objectionable letters received from authorities in Rajasthan and Haryana. The petitioner's concerns regarding the incorrect contents of these letters and the need to summon/call the orders passed were duly noted. The respondent's counsel, recognizing the importance of a fair decision-making process, agreed to the extension of the time period by six weeks, a concession supported by the petitioner's advocate. This extension was crucial to ensure an objective and comprehensive assessment of the objections raised, emphasizing the court's commitment to a just resolution of the matter.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of providing sufficient time for the adjudicating authority to address objections and contentions effectively. By extending the timeframe for passing a speaking order, the court aimed to facilitate a fair and thorough decision-making process, accommodating the complexities involved in verifying objectionable letters and ensuring a just outcome. The cooperation between the parties' counsels in agreeing to the extension reflects a shared commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and objectivity in the resolution of the legal dispute at hand.