AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Though this petition is posted for preliminary hearing in ''B'' Group, with the consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing and disposed off by this order.
The petitioner in this petition is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). In this petition, he has called in question the correctness of the order dated 26th February, 2000, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-B to the petition, passed by the first respondent in exercise of the powers conferred on him under sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act revising the order of assessment passed by the second respondent-Assessing Authority granting exemption to the petitioner from payment of sales tax in respect of the papers which according to the petitioner are old newspapers.
Sri Subramanyam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner challenging the impugned order, made two submissions. Firstly, he submitted that since the subject-matter of assessment being old newspapers, the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax on those papers and therefore, the Assessing Authority was justified in granting exemption on inter-State sale of old newspapers made by the petitioner. Secondly, he submitted that since the impugned order came to be passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner and conducting any enquiry, the impugned order is required to be quashed on the ground that the same came to be passed in disregard of the principles of natural justice.
However, Sri Veda Murthy, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents refuting the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the papers in question are old newspapers is not correct. According to the learned Government Pleader, the sale of newspapers made by the petitioner is a waste paper in respect of which tax is leviable. He further submitted that the first respondent having once granted two weeks time to the petitioner, was fully justified in refusing to grant of further time on a request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the second occasions as the first respondent was convinced that an attempt was being made by the petitioner to delay the proceedings.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I am of the view that since the order impugned is liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner is denied of an opportunity to put forth his objections and establish his case, I find it unnecessary to consider the first contention of Sri Subramanyam. The observation made by the first respondent in the impugned order no doubt shows that the petitioner was initially given fifteen days time. However, subsequently, the request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner when he filed power on behalf of the petitioner to adjourn the proceedings by four weeks was rejected and the impugned order came to be passed. May be that an attempt was being made by the petitioner to delay the proceedings. However, when the Counsel for the petitioner had filed the power on 15th February, 2002 and prayed for four weeks time, at least, some reasonable time should have been given by the first respondent to enable the learned Counsel to get ready with the matter. It is necessary to point out that the first respondent has revised the order of assessment made by the Assessing Authority granting exemption. Under those circumstances, I am of the view, that no serious prejudice would have been caused if some reasonable time was granted to the learned Counsel for the petitioner to represent the case of the petitioner. Admittedly, not even a day''s time was granted to the Counsel for the petitioner to proceed with the matter. Therefore, I am of the view that since the impugned order being an ex parte order, it would be in the interest of justice to quash the said order and give one more opportunity to the petitioner subject to the condition of imposition of cost.
In the light of the discussion made above, the order Annexure-B, dated 26th February, 2002 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration. With a view to avoid delay in the disposal of the proceedings by the first respondent, petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent on 22nd July, 2002 at 3 P.M. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled for any fresh notice from the respondents. If the petitioner fails to appear before the first respondent on the date and time referred to above, liberty is reserved to the first respondent to take an ex parte decision in the matter. The petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- before the first respondent towards the cost of this petition on or before 22nd July, 2002.
In terms stated above, this petition is disposed off.