Unfair Hearing Date Change Leads to Overturned Tax Orders

The High Court set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Additional Commissioner of Commercial Tax due to violations of natural justice. The Assistant Commissioner preponed the hearing date without allowing the submission of necessary documents, leading to the imposition of a penalty on the petitioner. The Court found that the authorities hastily passed the orders without granting proper opportunity for submission, breaching principles of natural justice. The orders were declared null and void ab initio.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to orders u/s Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India regarding violation of natural justice in commercial tax matter.

Violation of Natural Justice:
The petitioner challenged the order dated May 24, 2003, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Check-post, Khawasa, Seoni, and the order dated March 22, 2004, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Indore, partly setting aside the former. The petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner preponed the date of hearing from June 1, 2003, to May 24, 2003, without granting an opportunity to submit the necessary documents. The impugned order imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,10,480 without allowing the submission of the requisite declaration form. The petitioner argued that this violated the principles of natural justice, rendering both orders null and void ab initio. The Deputy Government Advocate, however, supported the impugned orders, stating that the petitioner's representative and driver voluntarily appeared before the authority on May 24, 2003, and requested a decision. The High Court noted that the authority passed the order hastily without waiting for the scheduled hearing date, thereby breaching the principles of natural justice.

Observation on Orders:
Upon reviewing the order dated May 24, 2003, the High Court observed a categorical statement indicating that the petitioner's representative and driver had expressed willingness to produce the declaration form. However, the authority failed to provide them with an opportunity to do so and rushed to pass the order before the scheduled hearing date of June 1, 2003. This hasty decision-making process was deemed to have violated the principles of natural justice, as proper opportunity for submission was not granted to the concerned parties.

---