CHITTUR PERFUME OIL INDUSTRIES Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO III AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX AND SALES TAX PALAKKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is challenging exhibit P5 order imposing penalty under section 45-A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which was confirmed in exhibits P7 and P9 orders in revision. PETITIONER is a partnership firm engaged in the manufacture of sandalwood oil. The penalty proceeding arose mainly because some slips were found out from the shop during inspection. PETITIONER was given a detailed notice proposing penalty, as can be seen from exhibit P2 dated May 2, 1994. PETITIONER filed a detailed reply exhibit P3 wherein petitioner requested that slips are necessary for giving effective reply. PETITIONER further requested that he may be given at least copies of the slips so that he can give effective reply. PETITIONER appeared on June 13, 1994 as mentioned in the notice and submitted his reply. PETITIONER also submitted that after getting the reply he may be allowed to give a detailed reply. PETITIONER's request was allowed. Photocopies of the documents were given to the petitioner. PETITIONER filed exhibit P4 reply thereafter, giving details and his comments regarding each slips. PETITIONER submitted in exhibit P4 reply that there is no irregularity and he may be heard and requested to drop the proposal. Thereafter, exhibit P5 order was passed without granting an opportunity of hearing. PETITIONER's revisions were also rejected subsequently. The contention of the petitioner is that after giving exhibit P4 reply petitioner should have been heard before passing the order. Section 45-A makes it mandatory that before imposing penalty an opportunity of hearing should be given to the party. Since section 45-A gives power to the authority to impose penalty, it is penal in nature. Principles of natural justice also required that a hearing should be granted.

(2.) IT is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that as proposed in the notice a hearing was granted on June 13, 1994. Petitioner explained the matter and has given all his explanations. Further all points raised by the petitioner were considered by the authorities and all the three authorities have concurrently found against the petitioner on questions of fact. Therefore, there is no need to set aside the orders as an effective opportunity was given to the petitioner. In revision petition also this ground of absence of hearing was not raised. The question to be considered in this original petition is whether there is any violation of principles of natural justice and if there is violation of principles of natural justice in the revisional authorities' order, whether that can be sought to be cured because of the revisional orders.