9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter referred to as the Act ) which was confirmed in exhibits P7 and P9 orders in revision. Petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of sandalwood oil. The penalty proceeding arose mainly because some slips were found out from the shop during inspection. Petitioner was given a detailed notice proposing penalty, as can be seen from exhibit P2 dated May 2, 1994. Petitioner filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tunity of hearing. Petitioner s revisions were also rejected subsequently. The contention of the petitioner is that after giving exhibit P4 reply petitioner should have been heard before passing the order. Section 45-A makes it mandatory that before imposing penalty an opportunity of hearing should be given to the party. Since section 45-A gives power to the authority to impose penalty, it is pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of principles of natural justice in the revisional authorities order, whether that can be sought to be cured because of the revisional orders. 3.. It is not disputed that petitioner was given an opportunity to file reply and petitioner was heard on June 13, 1994. Petitioner appeared with accounts and explained the facts and submitted that he cannot fully explain the matter without getting co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered order without an effective opportunity of hearing cannot cure the defect. Therefore, I am of the opinion that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner for hearing and fresh orders to be passed. Consequently, exhibit P5 order which was confirmed by exhibits P7 and P9 orders and consequential demands are set aside. Petitioner shall be heard again by the original authority and after h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
