Sigma Pollution Control Equipments (INDIA) PVT. LTD. vs. The State Tax Officer -1

Held

The Court noted that the 1st respondent had passed orders on the petitioner's rectification application (Exbt-P7) and that these orders would be communicated to the petitioner. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that no reasonable opportunity of being heard was afforded prior to the decision on Exbt-P7 and before the passing of Exbt-P5, constituting a violation of natural justice. Given that orders on Exbt-P7 had been passed, the main prayer of the writ petition was rendered practically infructuous. The Court directed the 1st respondent to immediately forward a copy of the order on Exbt-P7 to the petitioner by registered post with acknowledgment due and to communicate the same to the learned Government Pleader, who would then furnish it to the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner was granted liberty to work out remedies if legally justiciable grievances arose from the order on Exbt-P7. Furthermore, the 1st respondent was directed to provide factual instructions to the Government Pleader regarding whether a reasonable opportunity of hearing was granted before passing Exbt-P5 and the order on Exbt-P7, and whether the petitioner was allowed to produce necessary documents. These written instructions were to be provided with precision. The writ petition was finally disposed of with these observations and directions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sigma Pollution Control Equipments (India) Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking directions against the State Tax Officer (1st respondent) for non-compliance with appellate orders (Exbt-P3, P4) and for passing a modified assessment order (Exbt-P5) for the year 2015-16 without affording an opportunity of being heard, thus violating natural justice. The petitioner also sought directions to pass orders on a rectification application (Exbt-P7) filed under Section 66 of the KVAT Act and to keep in abeyance recovery proceedings (Exbt-P6) initiated by the 3rd respondent until the rectification application was disposed of. The High Court had previously directed the 1st respondent to furnish details regarding the assessment order and rectification application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the 1st respondent complied with the directions in appellate orders (Exbt-P3, P4) and natural justice principles by passing the modified assessment order (Exbt-P5) for 2015-16 without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard? 2. Whether the 1st respondent violated natural justice by not affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing orders on the rectification application (Exbt-P7)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that both the modified assessment order (Exbt-P5) and the subsequent orders on the rectification application (Exbt-P7) were passed in flagrant violation of the elementary canons of natural justice and fairness, as no opportunity of being heard was provided. The petitioner relied on the principles of natural justice and fair procedure. Revenue's arguments: The Government Pleader, on instructions, submitted that the 1st respondent had passed orders on the rectification application (Exbt-P7), rejecting the petitioner's plea, and that these orders would be communicated to the petitioner. No specific arguments were recorded regarding the alleged violation of natural justice in the passing of Exbt-P5 or Exbt-P7.