Skip to content


Ravindra Singh Vishwa Mohan and ors. Vs. Assistant Sugar Commissioner and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case Number Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 671 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1986]61STC47(All)
AppellantRavindra Singh Vishwa Mohan and ors.
RespondentAssistant Sugar Commissioner and anr.
Appellant Advocate R.R.K. Trivedi, Adv.
Respondent Advocate(sic)
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
- - 14,826.67. 3. i have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 1) is dated 19th august, 1981. this fact clearly indicates that the revision was not disposed of by the revising authority on 14th august, 1981. the allegation of the petitioners to that effect contained in paragraph 9 of the writ petition has not been specifically denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit while replying, to the contents of the aforesaid paragraph of the writ petition......under article 226 of the constitution of india has been filed against the order of the assistant sugar commissioner (revising authority), moradabad, dated 19th august, 1981, whereby he had enhanced the u.p. sugarcane purchase tax on the petitioners and imposed a tax of rs. 14,826.67. the petitioners were granted a licence for a sugarcane crusher on 26th november, 1980. the assessing authority on the basis of various inspection reports, etc., assessed the sugarcane purchase tax on the petitioners for the relevant period and determined the total tax to be payable by them at rs. 7,480.2. the assistant sugar commissioner (revising authority), moradabad, exercising his power under section 3-b of the u.p. sugarcane purchase tax act, 1961, revised the order passed by the assessing authority.....
Judgment:

Anshuman Singh, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order of the Assistant Sugar Commissioner (Revising Authority), Moradabad, dated 19th August, 1981, whereby he had enhanced the U.P. sugarcane purchase tax on the petitioners and imposed a tax of Rs. 14,826.67. The petitioners were granted a licence for a sugarcane crusher on 26th November, 1980. The assessing authority on the basis of various inspection reports, etc., assessed the sugarcane purchase tax on the petitioners for the relevant period and determined the total tax to be payable by them at Rs. 7,480.

2. The Assistant Sugar Commissioner (Revising Authority), Moradabad, exercising his power under Section 3-B of the U.P. Sugarcane Purchase Tax Act, 1961, revised the order passed by the assessing authority and enhanced the tax to the tune of Rs. 14,826.67.

3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The counsel for the petitioners has contended before me that a notice dated 31st July, 1981, was served on the petitioners intimating them 14th August, 1981, as the date fixed before the revising authority and petitioner No. 3 in pursuance of the aforesaid notice reached the office of respondent No. 1 at 3.00 P.M. and explained him the difficulty of his late coming and submitted an application before him to accept the same but respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that the case has already been decided. The order passed by the revising authority (respondent No. 1) is dated 19th August, 1981. This fact clearly indicates that the revision was not disposed of by the revising authority on 14th August, 1981. The allegation of the petitioners to that effect contained in paragraph 9 of the writ petition has not been specifically denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit while replying, to the contents of the aforesaid paragraph of the writ petition. Moreover, the counter-affidavit has been filed by one Mata Prasad Tripathi, who is the Khandsari Inspector, Moradabad, whereas the revising authority was the Assistant Sugar Commissioner, Moradabad. In view of the allegation made by the petitioners that respondent No. 1 did not afford the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard and petitioner No. 3 was present in his office at 3.00 P.M. on 14th August, 1981, it would have been appropriate if a counter-affidavit would have been filed by the authority concerned. The Assistant Sugar Commissioner has exercised his power under Section 3-B suo motu and in this view of the matter it was all the more necessary that the petitioners should have been given a reasonable opportunity of hearing inasmuch as the tax imposed by the assessing authority was enhanced by the revising authority. In my opinion the justice should not only be done but it should seemingly appear to have been done. It is also desirable that a person who is going to be fixed the liability of payment of tax to a higher amount than assessed by the assessing authority, should be given a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. In view of the aforesaid fact I am of the view that the petitioners were not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard.

4. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and the order passed by the Assistant Sugar Commissioner dated 19th August, 1981, is quashed. The case is remanded back to the Assistant Sugar Commissioner with a direction to decide the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //