TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 864X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authority for filing the reply was required to be extended in order to enable him to collect some record. It cannot therefore be said that if detailed reasons for issuance of notice being absent in the show-cause notice, the same was invalid and void, appellant would not in any manner be prejudiced due to issuance of the aforesaid show-cause notice, appeal has no merit and is dismissed - Civil Appeal No. 1410 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 25-3-2010 - JAIN D.K. AND MUKUNDAKAM SHAA DR.RM AND LODHA R.M. JJ. Rana Mukherjee, Ms. M. Indrani and Abhijit Sengupta, Advocates, for the appellant. M. Chandrasekharan, Senior Advocate (Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma and Rupesh Kumar, Advocates, with him) for the respondents. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by DR. MUKANDAKAM SHARMA J. The issue that falls for consideration in the present appeal is whether the show-cause notice issued by the respondent is illegal and defective as the same did not provide for a time period of 15 days as prescribed in the statute and also because it did not disclose materials leading to the satisfaction of the concerned a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge in this appeal. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted before us that the aforesaid show-cause notice is illegal and without jurisdiction as a time period of 15 days which is required to be given was not extended to the appellant to submit its reply to the show-cause notice. It was also submitted that the said notices were invalid due to non-mentioning of materials leading to the satisfaction of the authority for issuance of such a notice. In support of the aforesaid contentions, counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the provisions of section 11E(2) of the Act as also on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner reported in [2001] 38 STA 4 and the decision in Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Director General (Investigation Registration) reported in [2001] 2 SCC 474. Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, refuted the aforesaid submission contending, inter alia, that what is challenged in the present case is only a show-cause notice and that no final order is yet passed. It was also submitted that the pre-condition as mentioned in the statutory provision is the satisfaction of the concerned authority that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s return. In Sales Tax Officer, Ganjam v. Uttareswari Rice Mills [1973] 3 SCC 171 [1972] 30 STC 567 (SC)., a similar issue as sought to be raised herein was urged before the Supreme Court. In the said case, a similar notice was issued by the Sales Tax Officer to the dealer contending, inter alia, that he had a reason to believe that his turnover for the quarter ending 1963-64 on which sales tax was payable under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 had escaped assessment/ had been under-assessed. In that view of the matter, the dealer was called upon to submit his reply. The aforesaid notice was challenged by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa whereas the High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the Sales Tax Officer did not indicate any reason for issuing notice under section 12(8) of the Act. On appeal being filed, this court in that context considered sub-section (5) and sub- section (8) of section 12. After considering the aforesaid provisions, the Supreme Court in paragraph 8 See page 576 of 30 STC. held as follows: "8. Although the opening words used in section 12(8) are 'if for any reason' and not 'if the sales tax authority has reason to believe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er with the purpose of informing him that the Department proposes to reopen the assessment because the Commissioner himself is satisfied that the dealer has furnished incorrect statement of his turnover or incorrect particulars of his sales in the return submitted, so as to enable the dealer to reply to the show-cause notice as to why the said power vested on the Commissioner should not be exercised. A notice was issued in order to provide an opportunity of natural justice to the dealer. There is nothing in the language of the aforesaid provision which either expressly or impliedly mandates the recording of any reasons. The provision of the Act nowhere postulates that the reasons which led to the issue of the said notice should be incorporated in the notice itself, and that in case of failure to do so, the same would invalidate the notice. The aforesaid provision is clear and explicit and there is no ambiguity in it. If the Legislature had intended to give any other meaning as suggested by the counsel appearing for the appellant it would have made specific provision laying down such conditions explicitly and in clear words. It is a well-settled principle in law that the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
