9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (2) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as is borne out by his letter to the Joint Secretary, Board of Revenue, with the result that the well-known rule of audi alteram partem has been violated thus resulting in manifest injustice to the respondentassessee. The Government Pleader for sales tax cases has assailed the order under revision on the ground that the Tribunal was in error in observing that the revisional authority cannot be said to have acted suo motu when he acts on information furnished to him by the office or other sources and the interpretation placed upon the words 'suo motu' by the Tribunal is not correct in law and does not accord with the accepted interpretation of that expression. It is also sought to be contended that the Tribunal was not justified in observing that the Deputy Commissioner had prejudged the issue even before he heard the respondent-assessee. The order is sought to be sustained by Mr. T. Ramam, appearing for the respondent, relying upon the findings recorded by the Tribunal. To appreciate the contentions put forth it is necessary to state the facts leading up to the filing of the revision. The respondent is a firm by name Messrs J. Papaiah Ch. Simhachalam Company, Rajahmundry, carry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under this Act, the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) shall be exercisable only within such period not exceeding four years from the date on which the order was served on the dealer, as may be prescribed. (4) No order shall be passed under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) enhancing any assessment unless an opportunity has been given to the assessee to show cause against the proposed enhancement ....." The scope of section 20 of the Act is this: The Board of Revenue is empowered to act suo motu and revise any order or proceeding recorded by any of its subordinate authorities by calling for and examining the records. The power to act suo motu and revise the order of an officer subordinate to a Deputy Commissioner is also conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner, the only limitation or restriction in the exercise of the power either by the Board of Revenue or the Deputy Commissioner being subject to the period of limitation prescribed, that no order in revision enhancing an assessment shall be made unless the assessee had been afforded an opportunity of being heard against the proposed assessment. That the Deputy Commissioner can act suo motu or on his own motion and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Deputy Commissioner had applied his mind to the facts placed before him before he issued a show cause notice as required under sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act. The reasoning of the Tribunal, we may say, does not at all appeal to us, for if we accept the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, it would only mean that the Deputy Commissioner should himself go through every order of an inferior authority whether the number of such orders is to a tune of 10,000 or 20,000. It is brought to our notice by the Government Pleader that on an average there will be not less than 10,000 dealers within the territorial jurisdiction of a Deputy Commissioner and if the reasoning of the Tribunal is to be accepted by us, it would be impossible for the Deputy Commissioner to go through every assessment order relating to the 10,000 or more dealers. It is because there are thousands of dealers and for proper exercise of control over the Assistant Commissioners and the assessing authorities that the post of a Deputy Commissioner is created with jurisdiction over five districts. It is the duty of the office staff for the sake of convenience and for easy disposal of administrative work to give a brief ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate Tribunal. The words "suo motu" only mean "on his own motion" as opposed to "on an application by a party". Sometimes audit objections are raised either by internal audit made by the department or by the audit made by the audit department and to say that the Deputy Commissioner cannot take note of irregularities and objections pointed out by it in order to exercise his suo motu powers would be to defeat the very purpose of auditing the office of the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner would be free to act on any information that is supplied to him or that comes to his knowledge as a result of his own enquiries. All that is required of him is that he should apply his mind to the information that he receives and if he is prima facie satisfied, then his action is not liable to be questioned. The two cases of this court relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, Kalluri Bheemalingam and Others, In re[1967] 19 S.T.C. 116. and Sree Ramachandra Ginning and Oil Mills v. State of A.P.[1967] 19 S.T.C. 354., do not at all render any assistance to the respondent for the reason that the learned judges were only concerned with the question whether sub-section (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defects or errors in any orders, it cannot be said that any further action taken by the Board of Revenue or by the Deputy Commissioner is not on its or his own motion but would amount to initiation of proceedings by a subordinate member of the staff. As already adverted to by us, it will be an impossible task to expect thousands of orders to be perused either by the Board of Revenue or by the Deputy Commissioner unless there is a machinery to assist them by giving them a brief summary or a factual statement of the case. It is true that the power conferred upon the Deputy Commissioner under section 20 of the Act is not administrative but quasijudicial. It is for that reason that sub-section (4) of the above section provides a notice being issued and an opportunity being afforded to the assessee before final orders are passed by the Deputy Commissioner or the Board of Revenue. It is too much to say that the Deputy Commissioner for the reason that he peruses the note prepared by the officer has abdicated the functions assigned to him under section 20 of the Act. The test is "has he applied his mind", and if he has applied his mind, the question of abdication of his functions does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at he cannot surrender his position to the Board of Revenue which does not come into the picture. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in B. Rajagopala Naidu v. S.T.A. TribunalA.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1573.: "It is of the essence of fair and objective administration of law that the decision of the judge or the Tribunal must be absolutely unfettered by any extraneous guidance by the executive or administrative wing of the State. If the exercise of discretion conferred on a quasi-judicial tribunal is controlled by any such direction, that forges fetters on the exercise of quasi-judicial authority and the presence of such fetters would make the exercise of such authority completely inconsistent with the well-accepted notion of judicial process." By drawing the attention of the Deputy Commissioner to the observation of the Supreme Court we do not mean to say that in this case the Board exercised its influence, but the Deputy Commissioner seems to have been under a misapprehension that the Board would be pleased to hear from him if he told the Board that he had already made up his mind in the matter pending before him. We hope there will be no repetition of such performances by quasi-judicia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
