New Golden Transport Company vs Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax and Others

Heard. By filing this petition under article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated May 24, 2003 (annexure P/2) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Check-post, Khawasa, Seoni as also the order dated March 22, 2004 (annexure P/6) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore in revision, partly setting aside the order dated May 24, 2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Check-post, Khawasa, Seoni had fixed date of hearing of the aforesaid matter on June 1, 2003. However, when on May 24, 2003, the petitioner''s representative and driver appeared before the said authority and submitted that they are willing to submit the declaration, the impugned order dated May 24, 2003 (annexure P/2) was passed on that day itself, without giving, opportunity to submit the requisite document and penalty amounting to Rs. 7,10,480 was imposed. The said order, on being assailed before the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, this aspect of the matter was not properly appreciated the revisional authority.

According to the writ petitioner, by preponing the date of hearing from June 1, 2003 to May 24, 2003 and by not granting opportunity to furnish the documents, as aforesaid, there is clear violation of the principles of natural justice rendering the order dated May 24, 2003 and the revisional order dated March 22, 2004 to be nullity and void ab initio.

The learned Deputy Government Advocate, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders. She submitted that the petitioner''s representative and the driver at their own had appeared before the said authority on May 24, 2003 and requested for taking decision in the matter.

Having gone through the order dated May 24, 2003, we find that a categorical observation has been made in the said order to the effect that the said representative and the driver appeared before the authority and stated their willingness to produce the declaration form. However, without giving them an opportunity to do so and without waiting for the date of hearing, which was June 1, 2003, the said authority has passed the order in hot-haste, which according to us, has violated the principles of natural justice. Thereafter in revision, this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the revisional authority.

In the circumstances, the impugned orders (annexures P/2 and P/6) are liable to be and are hereby quashed. The case is remitted back to the second respondent for taking a fresh decision in the matter, uninfluenced by the observations made by the revisional authority in annexure P/6. The second respondent shall consider the effect and impact of the letter dated May 19, 2003 (annexure P/5) and the relevant documents as may be submitted by the petitioner, while taking the fresh decision in the matter.

The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The petitioner to appear before the second respondent on December 14, 2012.