TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (2) TMI 465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 1729 of 1993 deals with reduction in rate of tax to industrial units. Small, medium and large scale industries are eligible for certain concessions. This notification was later modified as per S.R.O. No. 170 of 1995. Clause 6A was added to the notification. We extract below the said clause 6A. "6A. In the case of large scale industrial units started production after 23rd September, 1991 and which purchase coconut or copra for producing coconut oil and coconut oil cake within the State, there shall be a reduction in respect of the tax payable by such units under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 on the turnover of coconut or copra purchased and used for production of coconut oil and coconut oil cake from 3 per cent to 1 per cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onducted by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Instead, a subordinate of his heard the representative of the appellant. The representative took part in the hearing without demur. Two statements/argument notes explaining the contentions of the appellant were filed before the Officer who conducted the hearing. 6.. The officer who conducted the hearing along with his notes submitted the draft order for consideration of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes approved the draft order and proceeded to pass the impugned order under section 59A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. It was held that the benefit of clause 6A extracted above is not available for the appellant in respect of such quantities....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as Mathew v. Secretary to Government (1999) 3 KLT 275, Katherine v. Secretary to Government (2002) 1 KLT 882 and Union of India v. Andrew (1996) 1 KLT 133. A valid institutional decision after institutional hearing may not be impossible under the Indian law also. In that view of the matter it may be possible in an appropriate case for a body like the Government, board, department or a specified head of the department to render an institutional decision after institutional hearing (and not personal hearing) without offending the rule of audi alteram partem. But the nature and quality of the hearing contemplated and the nature and texture of the decision to be rendered must be carefully and alertly considered to answer the question whether in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thereof, whether any activity carried out in any goods amounts to or results in the manufacture of goods are all, disputes falling within the ambit of section 59A(1). The nature of disputes clearly have the colour of the lis between an individual and the authorities. It is not only general questions relating to interpretation of the statutory provisions, rules and notifications that are likely to arise for consideration in proceedings under section 59A. The indications certainly suggest that the decisions contemplated under section 59A are not merely institutional ones. In addition to cold interpretations of the statutory provisions, rules and notifications, live questions of sifting, weighing and appreciation of evidence tendered wil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aring before the specified authority. The rule of audi alteram partem is woven into the statutory provision in section 59A(2) and made explicit. It is also of crucial significance that the hearing is to be held and the decision is to be rendered not by a body like the Government or the Board of Revenue. The decision is to be rendered by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, a specified named official/ authority. This again, according to us, does point to the fact that the hearing and the decision contemplated under section 59A are not institutional but personal. It is also of crucial significance that there are no statutory rules or rules of procedure which entitle or enable the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to permit a subordinate offic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the latter question raised before us. We are of the opinion that the question deserves to be decided by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes after following the procedure prescribed under section 59A(2) scrupulously. The mere fact that the appellant has been given an opportunity to be heard at the appellate stage cannot according to us cure the material defect in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under section 59A. The question raised deserved to be decided by the Commissioner afresh with the advantage of his hearing the appellant personally as contemplated under section 59A. 17.. Nor are we prepared to accept the contention of the State that the alleged infraction can be ignored for the reason that th....