MAHAVIR CHOUDHURY Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER BALANGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to this case lie in a short compass. The original petitioner having died during the pendency of this case his legal representatives have been substituted. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the period from June, 1953 to March, 1962, but on account of non -payment of the tax, a certificate proceeding was initiated against him at the instance of the Sales Tax Officer as the requisitioning officer. The petitioner having been issued notice in respect of the proceeding, filed objection denying his liability and inter alia took the plea of the demand being barred by limitation. On 7 -7 -1972 the Certificate Officer held the cues from June, 1953 to June, 1960 to be barred by limitation and the certificate holder was directed to specify the arrear dues from June, T960 to March, 1962. In appeal filed by the State against the order passed by the Certificate Officer, the appellate authority remanded the matter to determine the question of limitation with reference to the assessment dates for the different periods of assessment. It is the petitioner's case that after remand, the certificate holder on being called upon furnished intimation through his letter on 2 -8 -1978 to the Certificate Officer indicating the dates of assessment for the period from March, 1953 to March, 1962 and the Certificate Officer by his order of 19 -5 -1984 held the tax assessed from 14 -5 -1958 as not barred by limitation and hence determined Rs. 2,989 -88 as being due from the petitioner. Even, though such order was passed, yet the certificate was not amended nor any fresh notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of such re -determined certificate amount. Thsreafter, for non -payment of the dues, orders were passed on 25 -5 -1934 for issue of sale proclamation of the immovable properties of the petitioner list of which had been supplied by the certificate holder and similar order was passed on 29 -6 -1984. The petitioner carried an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate which having failed, he has come before this Court.

(2.) MR . N. C. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner, though tried to canvass various objections as to the non -executability of the certificate, yet ultimately confined his submission only to one point, namely, the Certificate Officer was under obligation as per Section 10 of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 to have issued a fresh notice and copy as provided for in Section 6 of the Act and that having not been done, the entire certificate proceeding has become vulnerable. It is his further submission that the petitioner as of right was entitled to be apprised of the letter of the certificate holder regarding the dates of assessment so that he would have been in a position to file objections as regards any dues having been barred by limitation and non -affording of such opportunity is hit by the principles of natural justice.

(3.) IN view of that, we have no doubt that the entire proceeding has become vitiated and hence the orders passed under Annexure -4 series and Annexure -5 are liable to be quashed.