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

2006 (2) TMI 597

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e inspected by the officials of the appellant No.1-Corporation. The respondent was a low tension category consumer. On 10.9.1993 a provisional assessment was made alleging pilferage of energy and a sum of Rs.27,610/- was demanded. It was indicated to the respondent that if it wanted to avoid disconnection it should deposit 50% of the amount fixed on provisional assessment. The same was deposited. On 15.12.1993 a show cause notice was issued proposing to charge Rs.1,41,270/- on final assessment. The respondent filed its objection. On 29.9.1998 the final assessment was made confirming the amount indicated in the show cause notice. Appeal as provided under the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy of the Andhra Pradesh State Ele .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... shall be entitled to call the said person for cross examination". Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court's view about the desirability of granting opportunity for cross examination is not supportable in law. According to him, the officers have no personal interest in the matter and, therefore, their statements are to be considered in the proper perspective by the authority making the final assessment. There was no question of any cross examination of such persons. Strong reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Hyderabad Vanaspathi Ltd. v. A.P. State Electricity Board and Ors. (1998 (4) SCC 470), more particularly, paragraphs 39 and 43. With reference to a decision of this Court in The New Prakash Transp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 39.9.2 deals with final assessment. Sub-clauses (1) to (3) thereof are extracted below for ready reference : 39.9.1 After the provisional assessment notice is served upon the consumer as mentioned in clause 39.3 thereof. The Officer authorized in this behalf by the Board (see statement referred to in clause 39.4 above) shall issue a show cause notice in the forms prescribed therefore advising the consumer to file his representation, if any, within 30 days from the receipt of the notice. 39.9.2 The said officer of the Board shall, after the expiry of the aforesaid notice period, enquire into the matter and after giving reasonable opportunity to the consumer and taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances shall decide whether t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t related to the absence of personal lis or interest of adjudicator. In that background it was held that merely because the departmental authority was adjudicating there was no prejudice involved. Those principles are not of any assistance in the present case. In the case at hand without even granting of an opportunity to the respondent, the final order of assessment was passed. Merely taking note of the objection filed cannot be said to be compliance of the provisions contained in Clause 39.9.2. Therefore, the respondent had made a prayer before the appellate authority. The parameters of the principles of natural justice cannot be covered by any straight-jacket formula. It would vary depending upon the circumstances involved. It is true t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence; and finally (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him." The nature of adjudication under Clause 39.9.2 of Terms and Conditions of Supply is some what different from an enquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever the statement of departmental officer is pressed into service for the purpose of adjudication, a right of cross examination is in built. On the other hand, what was said in Bakshi's case (supra) has also really no relevance .....

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