TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (3) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case to the Collector for a fresh decision with the following directions : "In view of the above, the adjudication order dated 15-5-90 is set aside. The collector shall resume the proceedings and summon the aforesaid three persons viz. Sri R. Salio, Sri Liangtilinga and Sri Lalchungunga for necessary examination in accordance with the observation made above and thereafter proceed to decide the matter afresh. The other materials obtained and already on record shall be available for the purpose. We also direct that further proceedings shall be taken by an officer other than the one who has made the adjudication order dated 15/16 May, 1990 and the competent authority in that regard shall take appropriate action and make necessary order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch as they were also co-noticees to the proceedings. They had also been issued show cause notices for contravening the provisions of the Act and, therefore, could not be compelled to appear for the purpose of cross-examination by another co-noticee. The Collector held : "Of the persons who were asked to cross-examination three of them viz. Richard Sailo, Liangtilinga, Lalchungnunga are co-noticees to these proceedings. By issuing them summons as requested by GTC, prejudice is likely to be caused to their defence by compelling their attendance before me. It is an established principle of law that no noticee can be forced to appear before the adjudicator. In fact, I had given the opportunity by letters dated 23rd Oct., 1989 and 17th Novemb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udication of the show cause notice and forwarded the same in a sealed cover to the High Court in terms of the order passed by this Court in SLP 6288/90. On 10th of July, 1990 High Court opened the sealed cover and delivered a copy of the order of the Collector to the counsel for GTC and directed that it may be served on the other affected parties as well. The High Court concluded the hearing on 10th August, 1990 and the impugned judgment was pronounced on 20th October, 1990. 8.Plea raised by the appellant that since the final order passed by the Collector had been communicated to the affected persons as required under the law, the parties should be directed to seek their remedy by way of appeal provided under the Act was rejected by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....djudication order of Collector was set aside and the matter was remitted back with the direction to resume the proceedings and issue summons to the partners of NET for necessary cross-examination by GTC and thereafter to decide the matter afresh. 10.Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Union of India Mr. Jaideep Gupta submitted that no statement was taken from Shri Sailo by the authorities nor did the authorities rely upon any statement of Shri Sailo against GTC. That it was not a case where the evidence had been produced by the appellant in support of its case and no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the other side. Notice could not be issued to Shri Sailo under Section 14 of the Act to compel his attendance and to make ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be relied upon for recording an adverse order against the GTC. 12.Submissions put forth by the counsel appearing for the Union of India cannot be accepted. It is an admitted case before us that Shri Sailo, Lalchunganga or Liangtilinga did not file any response by way of a written reply. Their statements were also not recorded. Shri Sailo appeared before the Collector on 25th November, 1989 in the absence of the representatives of GTC, on which date the Collector recorded the submissions of Shri Sailo. At the subsequent hearing which took place on 1st May, 1990, representatives of GTC attended the proceedings but were not given any notice or information about the submissions/statement made by Shri Sailo on 25th November, 1989. Thereafter,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the submissions/statement of Shri Sailo as there was other sufficient material on record to sustain and justify the said order cannot be accepted. It may not be possible for us to separate or disentangle the submissions of Shri Sailo from other material evidence on record. It is well settled that a quasi-judicial order has to be judged on the basis of reasoning contained therein and not on the basis of pleas put forward by the person seeking to sustain the order in its counter affidavit or oral arguments before the court. 15.It is apt to note here that no statement was made by Shri Salio before the adjudicating authority. What is referred to as statement of Shri Salio is nothing but his oral submissions made at the hearing. 16.An adv....