TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (4) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment order dated March 30, 1989, the Assistant Commissioner (Assmt.) II, Special Circle, Ernakulam, who is the assessing authority in this case, determined the taxable turnover of the petitioner-firm for the year 1985-86 at Rs. 22,72,140.50 as against the turnover of Rs. 20,11,470.50 returned by the firm. Being aggrieved by this assessment, the petitioner-firm filed an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ernakulam (hereinafter described as "the Deputy Commissioner"), under section 34 of the Act. That appeal happened to be decided ex parte. As against the said ex parte order dated July 15, 1991, a further appeal was filed by the petitioner-firm before the Tribunal as T.A. No. 141 of 1992. Notwithstanding the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provision. They are: (i) an opportunity of being heard must be made available, and (ii) such opportunity must be reasonable. Whether in a given situation, the opportunity of being heard made available to the appellant is "reasonable" or not is largely depended on the facts of each case. In this case there is no dispute on the fact that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated July 15, 1991, was passed without hearing the petitioner-firm, the appellant therein. In the appeal, S.T.A. No. 196 of 1989, before the Deputy Commissioner the petitioner-firm was represented by a chartered accountant, Sri N. Vittal Rao. According to the Deputy Commissioner, the appeal was posted for hearing on different dates, namely, June 13, 1989, July 12, 198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Agricultural Income-tax and Sales Tax, Ernakulam, as regards the case S.T.A. No. 1961/89. 3.. The above case was first posted for hearing on June 13, 1989. I had gone to Ernakulam and had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and represented the case. But the Deputy Commissioner was transferred before the order could be written. 4.. Subsequently, the case was re-posted for hearing by the incumbent Deputy Commissioner on July 12, 1989. Against this notice, I had applied for an adjournment as I had to appear other time barring assessment. 5. The case was again re-posted on October 18, 1989. I had appeared before the Deputy Commissioner but the Deputy Commissioner did not take up ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould not be present for hearing because he had some other urgent work and therefore he applied for adjournment. The appeal was thereafter posted for hearing on October 18, 1989, on which day the petitioner's representative appeared but the Deputy Commissioner did not take up the appeal for hearing on that day. It was re-posted to November 15, 1989. According to the petitioner's representative, he had received the notice of the above re-posting only on November 15, 1989 and therefore he had applied for adjournment. Now, let us examine the position as to the final date of hearing on July 11, 1991. It may be noticed that the appeal was posted for hearing only after 18 months. The petitioner's representative stated in the affidavit that he was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....heard as contemplated in sub-section (3) of section 34 of the Act. What is engrained in this provision is not an empty formality but a valuable right made available to an appellant-registered dealer under the Act. Even though this right personifies the principle of natural justice it can accurately be described as a statutory right in the present case. Such a right cannot be allowed to be defeated by procedural wrangles or whims and fancies of the authorities concerned. "A reasonable opportunity of being heard" contemplated in the section shall be effective and adequate and it cannot be made illusory under any circumstance. Mere issue of a notice of hearing of the appeal will not suffice at all circumstances. In the facts set out hereinbefo....