TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 1241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the file of the second respondent. For the year 2002-2003, he reported a total and taxable turnover of Rs. 62,26,011/-. Based on the inspection made on 06.03.2003, the first respondent passed a best of judgment order under Section 12(2) of the Act by determining the total and taxable turnover of Rs. 1,14,50,559. 3. The petitioner submits that the assessing authority has not deducted the discount of Rs. 3,66,614/- given by the cement companies which are clearly recorded at page 255 of the ledger. Further, he alleges that instead of assessing only at 1% as per the notification issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (CT), Chennai, in Lr.No.K.Dis Act Cell 1/17623/04, dated 08.04.2004, the Assessing officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Officer has levied a penalty under Section 12(3)(b) is unlawful. The penalty could be levied if only concealment of turnover with intent to evade tax is proved. The appellants have a valid and proper explanation for alleged discrepancies and it has not been proved there has been suppressions of sales with intention to evade tax. The levy of penalty is not warranted." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Committee did not take into consideration the relevant factual details which had been raised to show that the provisions of the Act and Rules are not attracted and that itself would amount to violations of principles of natural justice. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Assessing Officer has stated that the entire D-7 records which have been seized, have already been accounted for. I have carefully considered the submissions made by either parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. Before going into the factual matrix of the matter, it is relevant to extract Section 16(D)(2) of the Act for the purpose of deciding this case. "16.D.1....... (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Special Committee may, of its own motion or on application, call for and examine the records of the assessing authority in respect of any proceeding or order under sub-section (2) or (3) of Section 12 or sub-section (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding, that on perusal of the files, it revealed that sufficient opportunity had been given to dealer to file objection and there is no violation of principles of natural justice and Act and Rules. 13. In my opinion, such a finding without reasons itself would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case of Muhurjee's case reported in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph Nos:35,38 and 39, are as follows:- "35. Reasons, when recorded by an administrative authority in an order passed by it while exercising quasi-judicial functions, would no doubt facilitate the exercise of its jurisdiction by the appellate or supervisory authority. But the other....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r under challenge. 38. The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action". As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion, that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities. The rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The ....