M/S Jind Genral Transport Co. (P) Ltd., Jind vs State of Punjab and Others

Dua, J.—This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiaia, dated the 6th of July, 1963 rejecting the petitioner''s appeal u/s 15 of the Punjab Passengers & Goods Taxation Act, 1952, preferred against the order dated the 28th September, 1962 passed by the Assessing Authority, Patiala, regarding an additional demand of tax of Rs. (sic),333.33 nP. for the year 1960-61. The appeal was called but since no one was present on behalf of the appellant, the same was disposed of without hearing anyone on his behalf. It has been observed by the learned Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner in the impugned order that the case was called but none was present on behalf of the appellant. The order proceeds as follows :

The appellant has not put in his appearance although the notice, for appearance in this Court today, had duly been served upon him and the acknowledgment in token of having received the notice has duly been received in this office. Hence the appeal is being taken up on merits.

The short question, therefore is whether the impugned order is vitiated on account of failure to provide hearing to the appellant.

In the writ petition it has been urged that the appeal was decided by respondent No. 2, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, on the 6th July, 1963 whereas a notice was received by one Vinay Kumar a minor son of Mr. P.C. Vatrana, who was an authorised agent of the petitioner on the 7th July 1963 by registered post A.D. Mr. P.C. Vatrana was out of station and he received the notice on the 8th July, 1963 after the appeal had been disposed of exparte. The petitioner which is a private Ltd. company was not served through its Managing Director and no notice had been received by it from the Appellate Authority for appearance on the 6th July, 1963 for the disposal of the appeal.

In the return sworn by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, it has been averred that the appeal of the petitioner-company was decided ex-parte because the petitioner had failed to appear before the Appellate Authority in spite of proper service. It has been denied that the service of notice had been effected on the minor son of Mr. P.C. Vatrana and has on the contrary been asserted that the notice had been received by Shri Jagir Singh who signed on the acknowledgment receipt for the Manager."

In this Court, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that even according to the respondents'' case, Shri Jagir Singh had received the notice of the appeal on behalf of the Manager. Jagir Singh, it is stressed, is not shown to have anything to do with the petitioner company. Service on him about the hearing of the appeal would thus not amount the service and the petitioner. A the bar, it has also been stated that the alleged service on Jagir Singh was effected at Ludhiana on 5th July 1968, whereas the hearing of the appeal was to take place at Patiala on 6th July 1963. It is emphasised that it could by no means be considered to be due service because there was no sufficient time given to the petitioner for conducting the appeal.

In our opinion, this petition deserves to succeed. Nothing cogent has been used on behalf of the respondents as to how service on Shri Jagir Singh could in law be considered to be service on the petitioner. In the return, it has not been disclosed as to whom this Jagir Singh is and how he is connected with the petitioner-company.

It may be pointed out that under Rule 27 of the Punjab Passengers & Goods Taxation Rules, 1952 (hereinafter called the rules), if the Appellate Authority does not reject the appeal summarily, it has to fix a date for hearing of the appeal as it has to be decided after notice to the Assessing Authority concerned, after considering any representation that may be made, by it and alter giving any opportunity to the appellant and such other persons as in the opinion of the Appellate Authority may directly be interested in the result of the appeal of being heard in person or by a duly authorised agent. It is obvious that the petitioner has to be informed of the date fixed in good time so that the opportunity of bring heard given to him is reasonable and conforms to the recognised rules of natural justice which demand that those whose interest may be directly affected by a decision should be given a prior notice and an adequate opportunity to be heard. This right to be heard embodied in Rule 27 is a fundamental rule of natural justice embracing the whole notion of fair procedure and due process. It is indeed fair play in action and is of almost universal validity connoting, as it does an opportunity of adequately presenting the case made. It is not the respondents'' case before us that the petitioner, which is a private limited company, had been intimated the date of hearing of the appeal either at its registered office or through any one of its directors or other agents. The word ''agent'' is defined in Rule 2(b) but the respondents have not cared to show that Shri Jagir Singh is the petitioner''s agent. The petitioner has pleaded that P.C. Vatrana is its authorised agent but the notice was served on his minor son on 7th July, 1963, one day after the disposal of the appeal ex parte. This has been denied in the return but it is not pleaded that Vatrana had ever been served with the notice of the appeal so as to afford him an adequate opportunity of hearing It is also not the respondents'' case that service of notice of the appeal as contemplated or provided by the Indian Companies Act was effected on the petitioner company.

In the case in hand, it is thus obvious that the impugned order was passed without complying with Rule 27 and without (sic)n the company by any other recognised lawful mode. From whichever point of view one looks the order challenged is infirm, being violative of the basic rule of natural justice which requires bearing before any order is passed to the prejudice of the partis affected. I may point out that nothing is more likely to conduce to just and right decision than the habit of first giving hearing to any affected party. The impugned order has not been sought to he supported on any other ground.

In the result, this petition succeeds and allowing the same with costs, we quash the impugned order and direct that the appeal be disposed of after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala, on 8th February, 1965 when a short date would be given for further proceedings.

Capoor, J.

I agree.