1971 (8) TMI 42 - HC - VAT / Sales Tax

Principles of natural justice - petitioner did not have a real opportunity to state his case - petition allowed - Whether assessing authority is justified in fixing a particular hour of day as the outer limit for making submission by the assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the assessment order dated 25th March, 1967.
2. Whether the petitioner had a fair opportunity to present objections.
3. Compliance with the principles of natural justice in the assessment process.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a contractor in the Forest Department, Tiruchirapalli, purchased Casuarina poles and claimed that his subsequent sale of these poles as timber did not attract sales tax as the tax had already been remitted to the forest department. However, nearly six years after the transactions, the respondent issued a notice for tax assessment for the year 1961-62. The petitioner alleged that he was not given a fair chance to present his objections as the assessment order was made on the same day he sought an adjournment. The main contention was the violation of natural justice principles due to the fixing of a specific hour as the deadline for submissions.

The court deliberated on the matter and emphasized the importance of providing a realistic and effective opportunity for individuals to state their objections in legal proceedings. It was highlighted that fixing a specific hour of a day as the deadline for submissions might hinder the principles of natural justice and fair hearing. The court opined that such time limits, though set for administrative convenience, should not impede the rights and obligations of the parties involved. In this case, the petitioner was deemed entitled to file objections by the end of the working day, and the assessment order made on the same day was seen as a violation of natural justice.

Consequently, the court found in favor of the petitioner, ruling that there was a breach of natural justice principles in the assessment process. The court allowed the petition, making the rule nisi absolute, and directed the subject-matter to be remitted back to the respondent for further consideration, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present objections and representations.