9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. It is also not his case that he had sought for such an opportunity or that the Deputy Commissioner, who had issued the show-cause notice proposing to revise the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, had heard him personally. It is well-settled that in cases where no request is made for personal hearing, the final order passed cannot be held to be vitiated on that account. Thus after taking into consideration the points raised, shall not be held to be invalid merely on the ground that no personal hearing had been afforded. Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 30-4-2009 - ANIL R. DAVE C.J. AND RAMESH RANGANATHAN , JJ. ORDER:- The order of the court was made by RAMESH RANGANATHAN J. Aggrieved by the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in T. A No. 704 of 2005 dated December 12, 2008, TREVC No. 62 of 2009 is filed. Seeking stay of collection of the disputed tax of Rs. 8,40,162, for the assessment year 1999-2000 (APGST), pending disposal of TREVC No. 62 of 2009, W.P. No. 7189 of 2009 is filed. Against the order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, in T.A. No. 703 of 2005 dated December 12, 2008, TREVC No. 45 of 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner was liable to be set aside. Learned counsel would rely on an order of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in Itikala Rachaiah Setty and Sons, Kurnool v. State of Andhra Pradesh [1990] 11 APSTJ 278, wherein the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Kailash Chand Pirthi Singh v. Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P. [1989] 75 STC 434 was followed. According to the learned counsel, since the successor-Deputy Commissioner had not issued the show-cause notice, principles of natural justice required that he should issue a notice afresh, receive the objections and give an oral hearing to the petitioner and, thereafter, pass final orders in accordance with law. On the exemptions being disallowed by the revisional authority applying rule 6(3)(ii) of the APGST Rules, learned counsel would contend that the Tribunal had failed to note that the assessing authority had initially issued a notice proposing deductions as per rule 6(3)(ii) but in the final order he had revised the deduction based on the statements duly certified by the executive engineer and had allowed deductions as per the accounts, that rule 6(3)(ii) was applicable only when the component ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was taking the gunny bundle containing 40 account books on October 5, 2001 from the auditor Ramachandramurthy and, while coming to his owner's house on his cycle, he had lost the gunny bag containing the accounts book. Learned Standing Counsel would draw attention of this court to the paper advertisement allegedly issued by the petitioner wherein also a reference is made only to the books having been lost while returning from the auditor's office. According to the learned Standing Counsel, the very fact that no such contention had been raised in the objections filed to the show-cause notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner would show that this plea of loss of the books of account was an after-thought and, since the petitioner had failed to produce the books of account, the Deputy Commissioner had rightly held that it was rule 6(3)(ii) which was required to be applied. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that there was no statutory provision which prohibited a successor-Deputy Commissioner from passing orders on a show-cause notice issued by his predecessor, and that the rules of natural justice could not be expanded to such an extent as to infer any such obligatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce being issued on October 28, 2002, the petitioner did not produce the books of account, that a final notice dated July 14, 2004 was again issued calling upon him to produce the books of account, agreements entered into with the contractors, work orders, etc., and, though the petitioner received the notice on October 19, 2004, he did not produce the books of account. In the counter-affidavit, a tabular statement of the notices sent is furnished which shows that, in his reply to some of the notices, the petitioner had merely requested time for production of the books of account but had failed to produce them for verification. It is not even the case of the petitioner, as is evident from the present TREVCs, that he had produced the books of account before the Commercial Tax Officer. All that is stated is that, though the assessing authority proposed to apply rule 6(3)(ii) of the APGST Rules, he had given up the said rule when the petitioner had filed his objections together with the particulars of the works as certified by the Executive Engineer (PR) and that, in his final order, the assessing authority had revised the deduction based on the statement duly certified by the Depart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y 30 per cent of the total receipts were assigned towards the labour component of the works and that the Commercial Tax Officer had erred in allowing exemption of 35 per cent. Section 22 of the APGST Act empowers a dealer to prefer a revision to the High Court against the order of the Tribunal, on the ground that the Tribunal had either decided erroneously, or had failed to decide, any question of law. The question whether the books of account were, in fact, produced before the Commercial Tax Officer or the Deputy Commissioner is one of fact and not of law, and since the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, has recorded that they were not, such finding does not necessitate interference by the High Court in revision proceedings. (Kailash Chand Pirthi Singh [1989] 75 STC 434 (All), Commissioner, Sales Tax v. Nand Mohan Madan Mohan [1984] 57 STC 35 (All). As rightly pointed out by Sri K. Raji Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, the petitioner has taken different stands regarding loss of the books of account. While the petitioner contended before the Tribunal that the books were lost while they were coming from the office of the Commercial Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner that either the Act or the Rules mandate a personal hearing being given to the dealer by the revisional authority. It is also not his case that he had sought for such an opportunity or that the Deputy Commissioner, who had issued the show-cause notice proposing to revise the assessment order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, had heard him personally. It is well-settled that in cases where no request is made for personal hearing, the final order passed cannot be held to be vitiated on that account. (State Bank of India v. Luther Kondhpan [1999] 9 SCC 268) In the absence of any statutory mandate, the question which necessitates examination is whether the requirement of an oral hearing forms part of the rules of natural justice. Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking landmine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessarily, be by personal hearing. It can be by written representation. Whether the said opportunity should be by written representation or by personal hearing depends upon the facts of each case and, ordinarily, it is in the discretion of the Tribunal. (Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1966 SC 671). Courts cannot insist that, under all circumstances, personal hearing has to be afforded to the person concerned. If this principle of affording personal hearing is extended whenever statutory authorities are vested with the power to exercise discretion, it would lead to chaotic conditions. The requirement of principles of natural justice, of affording an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed, is complied with by affording an opportunity to the person concerned to present his case before such quasi-judicial authority who is expected to apply his judicial mind to the issues involved. An order passed, after taking into consideration the points raised, shall not be held to be invalid merely on the ground that no personal hearing had been afforded. This is all the more important in the context of taxation and revenue matters (Union of India v. Jesus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
