9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against dismissal of suit for excise duty payment on tobacco cultivation; Allegation of violation of natural justice principles; Contention regarding legality of duty payment; Appeal based on lack of opportunity to be heard in appellate proceedings; Application of Supreme Court judgment on deposit requirement for appeal hearings. Analysis: The plaintiff filed an appeal against the dismissal of the suit concerning excise duty payment on tobacco cultivation. The plaintiff claimed to have cultivated land and paid duty for the entire field, while the defendant alleged duty was paid only for a part of the land. The trial court and appellate court upheld the defendant's contentions, denying the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff contended that the duty paid was for the entire land, but the courts negatived this argument. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged a violation of natural justice principles during the inquiry, which was also dismissed by the courts. In the appeal, the plaintiff raised a legal question regarding the lack of opportunity to be heard in the appellate proceedings. The plaintiff argued that the order seeking to levy a sum was confirmed in appeal without granting a right of hearing, rendering it void. The plaintiff cited a Supreme Court case nullifying the requirement to deposit the challenged amount as a condition for appeal hearings. The plaintiff emphasized that the lack of opportunity to present his case in the appellate order made it void, warranting success for the plaintiff's suit on this ground. The court referred to a previous case highlighting that an order made in breach of natural justice principles remains void, even if an opportunity for representation is provided post-order. The court emphasized the importance of the plaintiff's right to appeal and criticized the dismissal of the appeal without a hearing. The court noted that the law declared by the Supreme Court must be followed, and the appellate order dismissing the appeal summarily was deemed a nullity. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to an injunction until the matter was properly decided by the appellate authority. The court acknowledged the plaintiff's argument regarding the technicality of the Supreme Court judgment and the timing of its application. The court emphasized that the law declared by the Supreme Court must be adhered to, and the plaintiff's plea was accepted. The court allowed the appeal, declaring that the respondent was not entitled to proceed against the plaintiff for duty payment. The court restrained the respondent from taking any steps to realize the amount and allowed the matter to be dealt with by the appropriate appellate authority in accordance with the law. In conclusion, the court allowed the appeal, granted an injunction against the respondent, and emphasized the importance of following legal precedents and principles of natural justice in appeal proceedings.
|
