TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The respondent ought not to have been punished for believing the certificate issued by the Government. - Decided against the revenue. - SALES TAX REFERENCE NO. 2 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2016 - MR KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPLICANT : MR HARDIK VORA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR TANVISH BHATT, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. The applicant State of Gujarat under Section 69 of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, 1969 made an application before the Tribunal to refer to this Court a question of law arising out of Tribunal s judgement and order dated 21.07.1988 in Second Appeal Nos. 63 64 of 1986. Accordingly, a statement of case was drawn on 09.08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the Act. During the course of assessment of the dealer for S.Y 2035, there was a spot visit by the officers of the Sales Tax Department at the business premises of the dealer on 12.02.1979 and 06.07.1979 when some books of accounts and other materials were seized. The Sales Tax Officer issued two show cause notices dated 17.02.1981 and 04.11.1981 requiring the respondent to show cause as to why the turnover of purchases and sales of the present respondent should not be enhanced due to certain discrepancies in the account books alleged to have been found as a result of the verification of the account books and other materials to which the respondent filed his replies. The Sales Tax Officer for S.Y. 2035 however disbelieved the same and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring for respondent supported the impugned order and submitted that the same having been passed in accordance with law does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Having heard learned advocates for both the sides we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly deleted the enhancement made. The respondent was not allowed to cross examine the deponents of the affidavits so as to rebut the averments made by the deponents in their affidavits. The Tribunal has in detail discussed the issue and come to the conclusion that the respondent cannot be faulted for believing the registration certificate issued by the Government in respect of the said dealers. An identical issue came for consideration by the Apex Court. The Apex Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter that is being dealt with, and so forth. Accordingly, 1 do not' derive much assistance from the definitions of natural justice which have been from time to time used, but, whatever standard is adopted, one essential is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case. One of the rules which constitutes a part of the principles of natural justice is the rule of audi alterem partera which requires that no man should be: condemned unheard. It is indeed a requirement of the duty to act fairly which lies on all quasi judicial authorities and this duty has been extended also to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for giving an opportunity to a person to be heard must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 11. Mr. Gupte learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the main object of the best judgment assessment was to pena lise the assessee for either not filing a return or for filing a return which was defective and if at this stage he is given a full-fledged 'hearing including the right to summon and cross-examine witnesses, then this would amount to condoning the default committed by the assessee. It was also argued that as the Income-tax authorities are not bound by the technical rules of evidence, the assessee cannot claim cross-examination of witnesses as a matter of right. In support of his submission he re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which the order by the Taxing Authorities can be passed. The admissibility of a document or a material in evidence is quite different from the value which the authority would attach to such material. The Privy Council has held that the Taxing Authorities can even base their conclusion on their private opinion or assessment provided the same is fully disclosed to the assessee and he is given an opportu- nity to rebut the same. In these circumstances, therefore, we do not agree with Mr. Gupte that merely because the technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply, the right of crossexamination cannot be demanded by the assessee in a proper case governed by a particular statute. 7. Similarly, this Court in the case of Commissioner of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
