Karnataka High Court
Asia L.P.G. Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 30 January, 1997
Equivalent citations: ILR1999KAR1632, [1997]107STC29(KAR)
Author: P. Vishwanatha Shetty
Bench: P. Vishwanatha Shetty
JUDGMENT P. Vishwanatha Shetty, J.
1. Though these petitions are listed for preliminary hearing in "B Group", with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up for final hearing and disposed of by this order.
2. The petitioner, which has been registered as a dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), has presented this petition challenging the order dated February 29, 1996, a copy of which has been produced as annexure E.
3. Sri S. A. Nazeer, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order impugned is liable to be quashed mainly on two grounds, Firstly, he submitted that though the petitioner has filed objections to the notice issued by the respondents under section 21(4) of the Act and sought for personal hearing and an opportunity to adduce further evidence in the matter, the petitioner was not learned and was denied of the opportunity to lead further evidence and therefore the order impugned being the one passed in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice, is liable to be quashed. Secondly, he submitted that the order impugned is based on the decision of this Court in the case of Lipton India Limited v. State of Karnataka [1994] 95 STC 225 and the said decision having been set aside by the honourable Supreme Court, the order impugned is liable to be set aside as the very basis of it no longer holds good.
4. Sri Shivayogiswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, while is unable to dispute that the petitioner was not heard and was denied of an opportunity to lead additional evidence, submitted that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, giving a personal hearing and an opportunity to adduce further evidence was unnecessary since the petitioner had already filed its objections. In so far as the second contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, the learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner's submission that the entire order is based on the decision of this Court in Lipton India's case [1994] 95 STC 225, is not correct and that the revisional authority has considered several aspects of the matter and passed the impugned order; and therefore the order impugned does not call for interference.
5. Since it is not in dispute that though the petitioner, in its objections statement, a copy of which has been produced as annexure D, had specifically sought for a personal hearing and an opportunity to adduce further evidence, the order impugned came to be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, it is liable to be quashed. Section 21 of the Act confers power of revision on Deputy Commissioners and Joint Commissioners. The very nature of the power they are required to exercise, has to be treated as a quasi-judicial power. Further, sub-section (4) of section 21 of the Act provides that 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. No doubt, in the instant case, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner as contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 21 of the Act. Since the nature of the power conferred on the revisional authority being quasi-judicial, the opportunity contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 21 of the Act must be treated as the one of personal hearing and if necessary, an opportunity to lead further evidence must also be given to the assessee having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had sought for a personal hearing and also an opportunity to lead additional/further evidence. Since the said opportunity has been denied to the petitioner before passing the order impugned, the order is liable to be quashed.
6. In view of my above conclusion, I find it unnecessary to go into the correctness of the second submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, which has been seriously countered by the learned Government Pleader. Therefore, I make the following :
ORDER
(i) Rule is issued and made absolute.
(ii) Order impugned dated February 29, 1996, annexure E, is hereby quashed.
(iii) The matter is remitted to the 4th respondent for reconsideration and appropriate order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in the light of the observations made above. It is open to the 4th respondent to consider the request of the petitioner for an opportunity to lead additional evidence, after hearing the petitioner on the basis of the merits of its claim.
(iv) The petitioner shall appear before the 4th respondent on February 28, 1997 at 11.00 a.m. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for any fresh notice from the 4th respondent for his appearance.
(v) All the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of their respective cases are left open to the urged before the 4th respondent.
(vi) The writ petition is disposed of in terms state above.
7. Sri Shivayogiswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader, is permitted to file his memo of appearance within four weeks from today.
8. Writ Petition disposed of accordingly.