Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (2) TMI 1429

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ount of Rs. 3,47,38,258.54 on account of tax and interest has been ordered to be paid by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, petitioner's representatives, namely Mukesh Kumar and Pawan Verma, appeared before the assessing authority, but without affording an opportunity to them, impugned order was passed. Per contra, according to the respondents, on 26.2.2013, neither the petitioner, nor the representatives appeared. Without going into the rival statements of the parties, since the impugned order dated 26.2.2013 has visited the petitioner with serious civil consequences, the petitioner should have been afforded sufficient opportunity at least by giving one more hearing to put forth their case. The impugned order has been .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 40(2) of the JVAT Act, 2005, The petitioner was directed to appear on 26.2.2013 on which date the representative of the petitioner-company namely, Mukesh Kumar and Pawan Verma appeared however, no opportunity of hearing was offered and the impugned order dated 26.2.2013 was passed raising a demand of Rs. 3,47,38,258.54. 2. A counter-affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. It is stated that details of returns filed with the Mining Department, Chaibasa was procured and on perusal of the same, it was found that the petitioner-company used to show price in its sale invoices which was lesser than the actual market price and the average price fixed by IBM. The matter thus, became .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... an ex-parte order, the Assessing Officer was required to pass an order for proceeding ex-parte in the matter and thereafter only the order could have been passed by the Assessing Officer. The learned counsel has relied on decisions reported in AIR 2007 SC 1261, (2007) 13 SCC 583, (2003) 4 SCC 557. 5. As against the above, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate-General, appearing for the respondents has submitted that, on verification of the data received from the Mining Office, Chaibasa, with the return filed by the assessee-company when it was found that the assessee-company has intentionally raised invoices showing lower rate of sale than the actual sale price, then the Assessing Officer issued notice to the assessee-company. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... at limits are they to be confined? Over the years by a process of judicial interpretation two rules have been evolved as representing the principles of natural justice in judicial process, including therein quasi-judicial and administrative process. They constitute the basic elements of a fair hearing, having their roots in the innate sense of man for fair play and justice which is not the preserve of any particular race or country but is shared in common by all men. The first rule is nemo judex in causa sua or nemo debet esse judex in propria causa sua as stated in Earl of Derby's case that is, no man shall be a Judge in his own cause . Coke used the form aliquis non debet esse judex in propria causa, quia non potest esse judex e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... such first hearing date, that is, on 26.2.2013. An amount of Rs. 3,47,38,258.54 on account of tax and interest has been ordered to be paid by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, petitioner's representatives, namely Mukesh Kumar and Pawan Verma, appeared before the assessing authority, but without affording an opportunity to them, impugned order was passed. Per contra, according to the respondents, on 26.2.2013, neither the petitioner, nor the representatives appeared. Without going into the rival statements of the parties, since the impugned order dated 26.2.2013 has visited the petitioner with serious civil consequences, we are of the view that the petitioner should have been afforded sufficient opportunity at least by giving .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates