Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (6) TMI 337

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spute : ( a )The petitioner was served with a notice to show cause under section 11 of the Act asking it to justify why action should not be taken for not complying with the obligations of export imposed under the conditions of the advance licence. ( b )In spite of receiving such notice, the petitioner did not answer nor did the petitioner demand any opportunity of hearing. The respondent authority suo motu extended the time to answer the show cause but the petitioner did not avail of the opportunity. Ultimately, the respondent ex parte passed the order impugned after finding the petitioner guilty of violation of the terms of the licence. 3. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up with this application. 4. Mr. Mehta, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ortunity to the owner of the goods, etc. No order imposing a penalty or of adjudication of confiscation shall be made unless the owner of the goods or conveyances, or other person concerned, had been given a notice in writing ( a )informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to impose a penalty or confiscate such goods or conveyance; and ( b )to make a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the imposition of penalty or confiscation mentioned therein, and, if he so desires , of being heard in the matter." [Emphasis supplied] 6. Section 14 of the Act gives power to the adjudicating authority to impose penalty after complying with the requirements mentioned therein. A .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ited by Mr. Mehta. 9. In the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills ( supra ), the Supreme Court observed that if in a statute conferring the power of giving a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected, there is no specific provision with regard to the giving of such opportunity and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, the Court must make every effort to salvage the said cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible. I do not, for a moment, dispute the aforesaid proposition of law. But, if in a statute, the extent of giving opportunity of hearing is explicitly limited, in such a situation, the Court cannot extend the said benefit beyond the one specified in the statute. In the ca .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Indian Income-tax Act, observed that the Courts have generally read in to the provisions of the relevant statute a requirement of a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an order is made which would have civil consequences for the parties affected. This would be particularly so in cases, the Supreme Court proceeded, where the validity of the section will be open to serious challenge for want of such opportunity. According to the Supreme Court, before making an order of compulsory purchase is made under section 269UD of the said Act, the intending purchaser and the seller must be given an opportunity of showing cause against the order for compulsory purchase sought to be made by the appropriate authority. The Supreme Court further observ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the wife not having prayed for leave to make submission, the wife had waived the right to address. Such contention was overruled by holding that a Court was to act in accordance with the settled practice or the rules of natural justice, and that practice or the rules give a person a right to be heard. Thus the Court, the Appeal Court proceeded, was wrong in proceeding to a decision without affording that right. In my opinion, the principle laid down in that decision has no application to a case where the statute specifically enjoins that a party is required to express his desire that he should be given an opportunity of hearing after submission of answer to the show-cause notice. In this case, as pointed out earlier, the petitioner, in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates