LEASE PLAN INDIA LIMITED Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a value added tax dealer on the rolls of the respondent. They are engaged in the business of purchase of motor vehicles as lessors and leasing the vehicles to the customers/clients on payment of lease rentals. For the period from November 2007 to August 2009 the respondent passed assessment order under Section 4(8) of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (VAT Act). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P.No.12915 of 2010. This Court stayed the collection on condition of the petitioner company depositing a sum of Rs.1.00 crore (Rupees one crore only). While the matter was pending, the petitioner filed an application on 29.05.2010 purportedly under Rule 60 of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (the Rules), for rectification of the mistakes in the assessment order. By impugned endorsement dated 10.06.2010, the respondent declined to consider the application. The endorsement is assailed in the writ petition.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that the non-exercise of power vested in the respondent under Rule 60 of the Rules has resulted in civil consequences. Therefore, he would urge that an opportunity of being heard is mandatory to comply with the rules of natural justice, especially, when the petitioner made a request for such hearing. Reliance is placed on various precedents of this Court as well as the Supreme Court.

(3.) In sales tax jurisprudence, it is now fairly well settled that the Assessing Officer or the appellate authority or the revisional authority, being quasi judicial authorities, are, in law, required to record reasons and afford a reasonable opportunity including an opportunity of being heard whenever such a request is made (see M.K.Venkatachalam, Income Tax Officer v Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited, AIR 1958 SC 875, Sangam Health Care Products Limited, Secunderabad v. Commercial Tax Officer, S.D.Road Circle, Hyderabad, (2005) 41 APSTJ 99, Gopikrishna Granites India Limited v. The Additional Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Legal), (2006) 42 APSTJ 14, Kamadhenu Feeds (P) Limited, Narakoduru, Guntur District v. The Commercial Tax Officer, Gandhichowk Circle, Tenali, (2007) 45 APSTJ 62 and S.Lalaiah & Company v. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Saroornagar Division, Nampally, Hyderabad, (2007) 45 APSTJ 116). Laying considerable emphasis on these judgments, Counsel assails the impugned endorsement. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission. The compliance with the rules of natural justice is not a straightjacket formula to be used to strike down quasi-judicial or administrative action. If the petitioner fails to show the prejudice caused by such non compliance, the Court can even interpret the requirement of compliance with the natural justice as directed (see State Bank of Patiala v. S.K.Sharma, AIR 1996 SC 1669). Further, it is also well settled that when the preliminary legislative authority or delegated legislative authority excludes the rule of audi alteram partem, the Court cannot read such requirement into law (see Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, AIR 1985 SC 1416). Thus, the mandatory compliance with the rule depends on the provision that falls for construction, and the facts and circumstances of each case.