9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and not on any hypothetical or assumptive price, has been made. The petitioner is a Mines owner, engaged in the business of mining. The petitioner-company was granted mining lease in respect of Iron Ore and Manganese over an area of 657 acres in the villages Barajamda, Khasjamda and Parambaljori within the District of Singhbhum West. The petitioner has been paying royalty @ 10% of the sale price. It is stated that Iron Ore is a decontrolled item and there is no law restricting or fixing the sale price of Iron Ore. On 18.2.2013, a notice was served upon the petitioner whereby it was intimated that the petitioner-company has been assessed for the period 2010-11 under Section 35(7) and Section 40(2) of the JVAT Act, 2005, The petitioner was di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pportunity of hearing, the impugned order was passed on 26.2.2013 itself. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, though the representative of the petitioner-company appeared on 26.2.2013, the Assessing Officer has erroneously, recorded that no one appeared on behalf of the assessee-company. Even if that is so, the Assessing Officer was required to grant at least one more opportunity to the assessee-company which admittedly was not granted to the assessee-company in the present case and therefore, the impugned order dated 26.2.2013 has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel has further submitted that before passing an ex-parte order, the Assessing Officer was required to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d demand has been issued. It is also not disputed by the parties that the proceeding initiated by the Assessing Officer was not in a pending proceeding. 7. Relying on the decision in Canara Bank & Ors. vs. Debasis Das & Ors. reported in (2003) 4 SCC 557, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice. The learned counsel has laid stress on the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 21 of the said judgment, which is extracted below:-- 21. How then have the principles of natural justice been interpreted in the courts and within what limits are they to be confined? Over the years by a process of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s right" [see Boswel's case (Co Rep at p. 52-a)] or in other words, as it is now expressed, "justice should not only be done but should manifestly be seen to be done". Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being in violation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceedings are left upon (sic open). All that is done is to vacate the order assailed by virtue of its inherent defect, but the proceedings are not terminated. 8. In the present case, this is not in dispute that the first notice was issued to the assessee on 18.2.2013 calling upon the petitioner to appear on 26.2.2013 and the impugned order has been passed on such first hearing date, that is, on 26.2.2013. An amount of Rs. 3,4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
