Unique Non-woven Company, Bangalore vs The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment 24), Bangalore and Another

Sri T.K. Veda Murthy, learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice to respondents.

Though these petitions are posted for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, these petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposed off, by this order.

In these petitions, the petitioner has called in question the correctness of the orders dated 31st January, 2001 and consequential demand notices dated 6th February, 2002, copies of which have been produced as Annexures-P1 to P15 to these petitions.

Sri S.A. Nazeer, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the impugned orders submitted that the impugned orders are required to be quashed by this Court on the short ground that the said orders came to be passed in total disregard of principles of natural justice. Elaborating his submission, he pointed out that the notice dated 10th January, 2002 was given by the 2nd respondent directing the petitioner to show cause as to why the assessment orders made by the 1st respondent should not be revised which was received by the petitioner only on 28th January, 2002; and in the said notice, the petitioner was given only seven days'' time to file its objections. Counsel further pointed out that since the staff of the petitioner was on leave on account of ill-health, the Counsel for the petitioner by means of his letter dated 28th January, 2002, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-N to these petitions sought time to file objections till 23rd February, 2002, however, the 2nd respondent without considering the prayer of the petitioner for grant of reasonable time to file objections in support of the claim of the petitioner that the orders passed by the Assessing Authority is not liable to be revised, the 2nd respondent proceeded to pass the impugned orders. The learned Counsel submits that the power conferred on the 2nd respondent being quasi-judicial in nature, the 2nd respondent should have considered the request of the petitioner for grant of time. He submits that the 2nd respondent proceeded to pass the impugned orders on the basis that similar claim of the petitioner was negatived by the Tribunal for the subsequent years. The learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the said approach made by the 2nd respondent is erroneous in law.

However, Sri Veda Murthy, learned Government Pleader tried to support the impugned orders. He submitted that since the Tribunal has upheld the proposed assessments made by the Assessing Authority in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent was competent to revise the order of assessments made by the Assessing Authority in the light of the order made by the Tribunal and therefore, it was unnecessary for the 2nd respondent to have given any further time to the petitioner to file its objections. Therefore, he submits that these petitions may be dismissed as one devoid of any merit.

Having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, I am of the view, the petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for by it in these petitions. The orders impugned shows that the petitioner had prayed for time by its letter dated 28th January, 2002 till 23rd February, 2002 to file its objections on the ground that the staff working in the petitioner-company who was in charge of accounts was on leave on account of his ill-health. This Court in the case of M/s. Asia L.P.G. Private Limited, Bangalore v State of Karnataka and Others, 1997(42) Kar. L.J. 407 (HC), has taken a view that the nature of power conferred under Section 21 of the Act on the 2nd respondent is quasi-judicial in nature. Under these circumstances, when a request was made on behalf of the petitioner seeking for a short time of around three weeks, I am of the view, the 2nd respondent was totally unjustified in proceeding to pass an ex parte order against the petitioner on the ground that under similar circumstances for the subsequent period the Tribunal has affirmed the proposed assessment made by the Assessing Authority in the case of petitioner itself. In my view, what is the defence that is available to the petitioner is a matter required to be considered by the 2nd respondent after considering the objections of the petitioner. Without considering the objections of the petitioner, it is not permissible for the 2nd respondent to proceed to pass the impugned orders on the basis of assumptions. The principle of natural justice demands that some reasonable time sought for by the petitioner was required to be given by the 2nd respondent. It is necessary to point out that the 2nd respondent was only proposing to revise the orders of assessment made by the 1st respondent. Under these circumstances, no serious prejudice would have been caused to the authorities, if time sought for by the petitioner till 23rd February, 2002 was granted by the 2nd respondent or even some date earlier to that date. The impugned orders does not even indicate that the 2nd respondent after receiving letter Annexure-N has even informed the petitioner that the 2nd respondent is not willing to give any time as sought for by the petitioner and the petitioner should file its objections immediately.

Therefore, in the light of the discussion made above, the impugned orders and the consequential demand notices issued to the petitioner are liable to be quashed and accordingly they are quashed. However, with a view to avoid unnecessary delay, the petitioner is directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 5th March, 2002 and file its objections on 5th March, 2002 itself. If the petitioner fails to appear before the 2nd respondent and fails to file its objections as stated above, the 2nd respondent is reserved liberty to pass an ex parte order. The 2nd respondent shall take a final decision in the matter in the light of the objections to be filed and without being influenced by the observations to be filed and without being influenced by the observations made in the orders impugned on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any event of the matter, not later than three weeks from 5th March, 2002.

In terms stated above, these petitions are allowed and disposed off. Rule is issued and made absolute.

Sri T.K. Veda Murthy, learned Government Pleader is given four weeks'' time to file his memo of appearance.