TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (9) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner in the original petition, is the partner of a firm. The firm is a dealer and it is registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. It was engaged in the business of hill produces. For the assessment years 1983-84 to 1988-89, the firm was assessed to sales tax. The appeals filed by the firm before the first appellate authority questioning the correctness or otherwise of the orders of assessment came to be dismissed by the first appellate authority by its order dated July 11, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the firm had preferred appeals before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal by its order dated April 2, 1996 and thereby has set aside the orders of assessment passed by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e property in question. Aggrieved by the action of the revenue authorities in bringing to auction the property attached for realisation of sales tax due under the Act, Shri. Subair Haji had filed a petition under section 53 of the Revenue Recovery Act before the District Collector, inter alia requesting him to set aside the same. The District Collector, vide his order dated August 5, 1995, has dismissed the petition so filed by Shri. Subair Haji. That order passed by the District Collector is questioned by Shri. Subair Haji in a revision petition before the Board of Revenue on September 22, 1995. The Board of Revenue, while entertaining the revision petition, had granted an interim order of stay staying the order passed by the District C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... set aside the sale certificate issued to the auction purchaser. The said original petition was dismissed by the learned single judge on the ground that O.P. No. 12000 of 2001 was allowed earlier. In the said decision it was also held that the remedy of Shri. Subair Haji is to file a review petition in O.P. No. 12000 of 2001 if he so desires or in the alternative to prefer an appeal against the said judgment. The said order passed by the learned single judge is the subject-matter of W. A. No. 31 of 2003. In O.P. No. 32506 of 2000, as we have already stated, the petitioner is primarily questioning the orders passed by the State Government in the revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 83(2) of the Kerala Revenue Recovery A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hearing by Government. Sri. N. Sudhakaran, the then Additional Secretary to Government, Revenue Department heard Sri. E.V. Mohanan, Advocate who appeared for Sri. T.V. Krishnan, the auction purchaser and Sri. Sugathan, Advocate who appeared for Sri. Zubair Haji, the revision petitioner. In the judgment read as fourth paper above, the honourable High Court has directed Government to dispose the revision petition within a period of three months which was extended three times on the request of Government. The time-limit fixed is to expire on 30th October 2000. Government examined the matter in detail in consultation with the Taxes Department, the Law Department and the Additional Advocate-General, Ernakulam." A perusal of the aforesaid ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot be delegated to any other officer. The principle of judicial system is that, a case should be decided by the authority hearing the arguments and that a successor cannot decide a case, without hearing the arguments afresh, on the ground that the arguments have already been advanced before his predecessor who left the case undecided. The settled legal principle is that if one person hears and another decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality and mere farce and hearing by a predecessor authority cannot possibly be of any advantage to a successor in deciding the case. Executive functions can be delegated and not the judicial functions. The decisions on this aspect of the matter are innumerable and in those decisions it is ....