Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (12) TMI 1463 - HC - Indian LawsPenalty u/s 2(h)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Held that:- The words/phraseology used in the first proviso to Section 20(1), especially “shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him” lead to a pre-supposition that the authority first has to come to a conclusion on the appeal and in the event the appeal is allowed, then thereafter the question of penalty would arise. In my view, the proviso gives the losing parties a right to a notice and hearing as regards imposition of penalty after the verdict of the appeal is handed down. It is only thereafter that a party similar to the petitioners would then become aware that the verdict has gone against it and would then be posed with the possibility of a penalty being imposed. It is in this situation that the hearing on the penalty is necessary. Analogy from the M/s. Guduthur Bros. (1960 (7) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court) ruling establishes that though issuance of notice before imposing penalty had not been expressly provided for under the Income-tax Act, 1922, opportunity of hearing before imposing penalty pre-supposes a proper hearing. Such a hearing can be made possible by issuing notice of hearing on penalty. Thus the concerned party is called upon to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed. To achieve this object, which appears to be the intention of the Legislature in providing a proviso to Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, it is incumbent upon the authority to issue a show cause notice under the proviso to Section 20(1). - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|