1959 (10) TMI 29

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to succeed in all these petitions. A notice was served on the petitioner whereby he was informed that his case relating to these years was posted for enquiry to 29th November, 1957, at 11 A.M., but the assessment orders now in question were all passed on the 28th a day earlier. Although according to the affidavit of the Commercial Tax Officer, the notice mentioned 28th November, 1957, as the date of the enquiry, it has been conceded by the learned Government Pleader after examining the notice produced by the petitioner, that the date mentioned therein is 29th and not 28th. The assessment orders passed without notice to the petitioner and without an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case are clearly invalid. It is, however, urged....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....convicting a man without hearing his evidence is so extravagant a statement as not to merit, in my judgment, a moment's consideration. As to the right of appeal to quarter sessions, it may be that the applicant could have had his remedy if he had pursued that course, but I am not aware of any reason why, in such Since reported as Jai Dayal v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Osmanganj [1960] 11 S.T.C. 782. circumstances as these, if the applicant prefers to ask for an order of certiorari to quash the conviction obtained in the manner I have described the court should be debarred from making an order." Humphreys, J., who agreed with the Chief Justice made the following observations: "I entirely agree with the description by Viscount Caldeco....