Dismissed

M/s. Srivari Industries v. The Commercial Tax Officer -Ii

Telangana HC11 Feb 2013WP/387/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging assessment orders dated 6.10.2012. The petitioner argued non-supply of an investigation report violated principles of natural justice. The Court held that since the petitioner filed no objections to the show cause notice and did not request the report, the plea of natural justice violation was untenable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; liberty granted to avail statutory appellate remedies.

M/s. Srivari Industries Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶2

WP Nos.386 and 387 of 2013

¶3

Common Order : ( Per Sri MSR, J )

¶4

These writ petitions are filed challenging the assessment orders dated 6.10.2012 passed by the first respondent for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 on the ground that before passing the said order, the first respondent had not served on the petitioner a copy of the investigation report of the 2^nd respondent.

¶5

The petitioner is a firm engaged in the business of manufacture of non-woven fabric registered as a dealer on the file of the first respondent. It had filed CST returns for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 with the first respondent. The 2^nd respondent conducted audit of the accounts of the petitioner and in his investigation found that the petitioner showed transfer of stocks to branches out of Andhra Pradesh although they actually pertain sale in the course of inter state trade.

¶6

Show cause notices dated 22.6.2012 were issued by the first respondent proposing assessment under the CST Act for the above assessment years and the same were served on the petitioner by registered post. As the petitioner did not produce statutory declarations and objections against the proposed assessment, the first respondent confirmed the proposal in the show cause notices.

¶7

Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petitions. The counsel for the petitioner contended that the first respondent had not furnished to it copies of the investigation reports of the second respondent before passing the impugned orders of assessment and therefore there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice; consequently the impugned orders of assessment are liable to be quashed.

¶8

The learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes Sri P. Balaji Varma contends that the petitioner had not furnished any explanation/objections before the first respondent; filed no material in support of his plea that the

¶9

transactions were branch transfers and not sales in the course of inter state trade; had not requested the first respondent to furnish copies of the investigation report of the second respondent; and therefore the petitioner cannot complain of violation of natural justice having not availed of opportunity to object to the show cause notice. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed.

¶10

We have noted the respective submissions. Admittedly, the petitioner did not file any reply/objections to the show cause notices dated 22.6.2012 issued by the first respondent to it. It also did not file any material in support of its plea that the impugned transactions were only branch transfers and not sales in the course of inter state trade. The counsel for the petitioner submits that its earlier managing director expired on 9.11.2010 resulting in disputes among the management and there was no responsible person to look after the affairs of the petitioner and therefore the opportunity given by the first respondent to file objections/material could not be availed of. We are unable to countenance such a submission. If the petitioner failed to file objections to the show cause

¶11

notice, it has to be presumed that it does not dispute any of the allegations made therein. As regards the issue of non-supply of the copy of the investigation report, this should have been urged in the reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner cannot now be heard to contend that non-supply of the copy of the investigation report has caused him prejudice because it never asked for it. It is settled law that principles of natural justice are not rigid and when an opportunity given was not availed of, the court would not set aside the order passed by the an authority on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court in ARUN PASWAN v. STATE OF BIHA R^[1] , held at para 14 as follows :

¶12

“ Regarding breach of principles of natural justice – both the contemners appeared before the Additional Director General of Police and gave their statements. It was open to them to cross-examine any witness who had deposed against them, which opportunity they did not avail. Since the contemners have not availed of this opportunity before the enquiry officer, the

¶13

plea of non-observance of principles of natural justice is not tenable.”…

¶14

We are therefore not impressed by the plea of the petitioner that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice. We do not find any merit in these writ petitions and the same are dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedies. No costs.

¶15

JUSTICE GODA

¶16

RAGHURAM

¶17

JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶18

Dt: 11-2-2013 Kk

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO

¶20

WP Nos.386 and 387 of 2013

¶21

11-2-2013

¶22

[1] 2004 (5) SCC 53

M/s. Srivari Industries v. The Commercial Tax Officer -Ii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Srivari Industries v. The Commercial Tax Officer -Ii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Mahi Agro Products Private Ltd., Vs The Superintendent of Central Excise

M/s.Indian Tobacco Traders, Partnership Firm Vs The Superintendent of Central Excise

M/s Indian Tobacco Traders Vs The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary Ministry of

Pragna Educational Trust, ( Regd No.2/BK4/99) Vs The Principal Secretary

M/s. Gayatri Projects Ltd. Vs Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary

M/s Rain Cii Carbon (Vizag) Ltd., Vs The Government of India