TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule which suggests that a personal hearing as claimed by the petitioner has to be granted - it is not a case where per se on the basis of the material available on record, a categorical finding can be recorded that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity of hearing and ex parte order was passed behind their back. On the contrary, the documents do indicate prima facie that opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner and the petitioner through their counsel did avail of this opportunity. This is not a fit case where exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the matter could be interfered with right away in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, instead it is a case where petitioner should take recour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Purnea and taking note of the preliminary objection raised, the question of maintainability of this writ petition has to be taken note of and decided first. 3. The petitioner claims to be a Company incorporated under the laws of Spain having its principal place of business at Kishanganj Circle, Kishanganj, Bihar. It is the case of the petitioner that after the assessment orders were passed on 27th of July, 2015 and 20th of August, 2015, coercive steps for recovery under the special provisions, i.e. 47 of the Act has been initiated on 14.02.2017 and therefore, the challenge is made to this action also. Petitioner is engaged in the business of erection of transmission lines on work contract basis and imposition of liability is pertaining t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t should be invoked and the impugned action quashed as it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. However, Sri Vikas Kumar, learned Standing Counsel-11 appearing for the Revenue, refuted the aforesaid contentions, took us through the original documents pertaining to the proceedings held and argued that the contentions of the petitioners are not correct. He tried to demonstrate from various documents and materials available on record that opportunity of hearing was granted, the petitioner participated in the proceedings and therefore, there is no illegality in the same. He referred to the order-sheets of the proceedings by producing the original files and also referred to the photo copies of the same filed along with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished, and the decision thereon. (4) A true copy of order shall be made over to the person proceeded against. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule would go to show that the Rule only contemplates issuance of show cause notice and hearing by granting opportunity of submission of documents. There is nothing in this rule which suggests that a personal hearing as claimed by the petitioner has to be granted. If we analyze the procedure followed in this case, as is evident from not only from the counter affidavit but also from the original file produced before us, we find that after objections were raised by the Auditors as provided under Section 33 of the Act, show cause notice were issued to the petitioner on 01.07.2015 vide Notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the petitioner in both the cases, submitted his objections and he was heard. That being so, we find that the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not granted opportunity of hearing seems to be incorrect. That apart, serious objection was raised by the learned Senior Counsel to say that the petitioner was not served with the orders of assessment. They only came to know about it when the action was taken under Section 47 of the Act. However, on going through the petitioner s own pleading from para 21 onwards it is seen that the petitioner make a submission about the demand and the tax liability imposed and it seems that the petitioner did receive some of the notices and communications, but they attribute certain reasons to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That being the position, we are of the considered view that this is not a fit case where exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, the matter could be interfered with right away in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, instead it is a case where petitioner should take recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal available where all these issues can be sorted out on a decision taken. 10. Accordingly, upholding the objection raised by the respondents to say that statutory alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, we dismiss the petition. However, we observe that the findings recorded in this order to say that the principles of natural justice have been followed is only a provisional finding recorded for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
