TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 895
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... leviable under the Act. Under section 11(3) of the Act, the assessment of the dealer can be framed within three years from the last day prescribed for filing of the returns. In the instant case the last date for filing of return in respect of the assessment year 2000-01 was April 30, 2001 and therefore the assessment was required to be framed on or before April 30, 2004. In the case of the petitioner the Assessing Authority, Hoshiarpur was the appropriate authority under section 2(a) of the Act to frame the assessment but the case of the petitioner was transferred by respondent No. 3 to the file of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Inspector), Punjab, Patiala. Thereafter the case was transferred to the file of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Kapurthala. It is alleged that no copy of the order transferring the case from Patiala to Kapurthala was ever supplied to the petitioner. The Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Kapurthala issued notice on September 1, 2003 (P3). The case was then again transferred to Hoshiarpur. The petitioner appeared before the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and questioned the authority of the Department to f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Kapurthala on March 18, 2003 who issued notice in form ST XIV on September 1, 2003 for framing assessment in respect of the year 2000-01. The petitioner is stated to have not raised objection to the transfer of the case from Patiala to Kapurthala. Some objections were filed before the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jalandhar. The matter was pending for final assessment when once again the Excise and Taxation Commissioner transferred the case of the petitioner to the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jalandhar. It is claimed that before transferring the matter grant of opportunity of hearing was not mandatory as it was in the discretion of the transferring authority under rule 39C of the Rules. The respondents have further claimed that assessment has been framed by the Assessing Authority, Hoshiarpur, after obtaining extension from the Commissioner vide order dated April 16, 2004 under section 11(10) of the Act to finalise the assessment and accordingly assessment order has been passed on March 31, 2005 when the records were received back from Jalandhar. Mr. K.L. Goyal, learned senior counsel for the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rect legislative negation or implied exclusion (vide S.L.Kapoor v. Jagmohan [1980] 4 SCC 379; AIR 1981 SC 136). (emphasis Here italicised. supplied) The same principle has been echoed in the observations made by the honourable Supreme Court in para 106 of the judgment rendered in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [1981] 1 SCC 664. "106. The principles of natural justice have taken deep root in the judicial conscience of our people, nurtured by Dr. Bina Pani [1967] 2 SCR 625; AIR 1967 1269, Kraipak [1969] 2 SCC 262; [1970] 1 SCR 457, Mohinder Singh Gill [1978] 1 SCC 405; AIR 1978 SC 851, Mrs. Maneka Gandhi [1978] 1 SCC 248. They are now considered so fundamental as to be 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' and, therefore, implicit in every decision-making function, call it judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative. Where authority functions under a statute and the statute provides for the observance of the principles of natural justice in a particular manner, natural justice will have to be observed in that manner and in no other. No wider right than that provided by statute can be claimed nor can the right be narrowed. Where the statute is sil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ative intendment either in the preceding or in the succeeding provisions to imply any such prohibition to comply with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, it follows that the principles of natural justice are inherent and have to be read in subsection (10) of section 11 of the Act expressly required the Commissioner cognizance in writing for extending the period of three years provided by section 11(3) for passing the order of assessment. As already observed in the preceding paras, the process of recording reason cannot be a unilateral act of the Commissioner. The association of the assessee to reach the correct reasons and whether any such reason was justified or not, would be essential, therefore, the so called order dated April 16, 2004 extending the period of limitation passed by the Commissioner cannot be relied upon by the respondent. The other impelling reason for reaching the aforesaid conclusion is that no such order has ever been communicated to the petitioner-assessee. It is well-settled that communication of the order passed by the Government is sine qua non in order to confer on such a letter the character of an order. In that regard reliance may be placed on ....