TMI Blog1961 (3) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty. They raised their objections which were considered by the Commissioner who, in spite of these objections, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to ask the petitioners to furnish security for the proper realisation of the tax levied or leviable under the Act. We agree with the chief Commissioner that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice in the present case. - Petition No. 77 of 1958 - - - Dated:- 14-3-1961 - DAS S.K., KAPUR J.L., HIDAYATULLAH M. AND SHAH J.C. AND VENKATARAMA AIYAR T.L. JJ. Bhavani Lal and P.C. Agarwala, Advocates, for the petitioners. C.K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (R. Ganapathy Iyer and T.M. Sen, Advocates), for the respondents. ----------------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. This section reads as follows: "Section 8A. Security from certain class of dealers.-The Commissioner, if it appears to him to be necessary so to do for the proper realisation of the tax levied under this Act, may impose for reasons to be recorded in writing as a condition of the issue of a registration certificate to a dealer or of the continuance, in effect, of such a certificate issued to any dealer, a requirement that the dealer shall give security up to an amount and in the manner approved by the Commissioner for the payment of the tax for which he may be or become liable under this Act. " On may 17, 1957, the petitioners asked for a fresh registration certificate on the ground that their original certificate had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nges in the name and place of business without giving specific details, late submission of information regarding the changes in the name and place of business, non-submission of returns for the year 1956-57 within the prescribed time, it appears necessary to demand security under section 8A of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 as in force in Delhi." Accordingly, on November 27, 1957, he made an order directing the petitioners to furnish security either in cash or by two personal sureties for a sum of Rs. 5,000 by December 15, 1957. Against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner the petitioners went in revision to the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. The Chief Commissioner heard counsel for the petitioners and by his order dated Apri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the manner approved by the Commissioner for the payment of the tax for which he may be or become liable under the Act: this power of the Commissioner is, however, subject to the condition that it must "appear to him to be necessary so to do for the proper realisation of the tax levied under the Act." In other words the Commissioner may exercise his power of demanding security only when he considers it necessary to do so for the proper realisation of the tax levied under the Act. By no stretch of argument can it be suggested that the power is an unlimited or an unrestricted power. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred us to the decision of this Court in Messrs Dwarka Prasad Laxmi Narain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and two Ot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d reasonable security for the proper payment of tax payable under the Act. This section came in for consideration of the Calcutta High Court in Durga Prasad Khaitan v. Commercial Tax Officer and Others [1957] 8 S.T.C. 105. and it was held that the section did not confer unfettered or arbitrary power to the Commissioner. We approve of the view expressed therein that the power to levy a tax includes the power to impose reasonable safeguards in collecting it, and demanding security for the proper payment of the tax payable under the Act is neither an arbitrary nor an unreasonable restriction. As to the contention that there is no limit to the amount which can be demanded as security, it is only necessary to point out that the amount that c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the notice issued, and also the statements made by them. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that no oral hearing was given to the petitioners by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and learned counsel for the petitioners has made a grievance that the order of the Commissioner was passed without hearing the petitioners. It may be pointed out here that when the petitioners were heard by the Chief Commissioner in support of their application in revision, they made no grievance on the score that the Commissioner of Sales Tax had not given them a second opportunity of a fresh oral hearing. We do not think that a second opportunity like the one suggested on behalf of the petitioners was either necessary or obligatory. The petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
