N N SOOR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE 5 references relate to five quarter ending 31st March, 1956, to 31st March, 1957, and involve common questions of law. Two questions of law have been referred by the learned Tribunal. Those are -

(2.) IN the reference order, the learned Tribunal has given a clear statement of facts. The material facts are that the petitioner supplied rubbles for construction of spurs at Daleighai. For the aforesaid quarters he furnished no returns alleging that they involved merely payments of labour charges and that he had no title to the rubbles. His contention was accepted in the first instance and there was no assessment of the sale price paid for the rubbles on the footing that it merely represented the labour charges. On investigation by the Intelligence Circle, the Sales Tax Officer reopened the assessment under section 12(8) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Against the order of assessment, the petitioner filed first appeals which were heard by Sri S. K. Das, Assistant Commissioner. Sri Das did not deliver judgment as he was transferred away. His successor, Sri M. Ramarao did not give any hearing to the petitioner and dismissed the appeals on the basis of the notes prepared by Sri S. K. Das and after making a further enquiry by examining the records of the Public Works Department and after having discussions with the officers in the Irrigation Department of the P.W.D. Against the first appellate orders, the petitioner filed second appeals before the Tribunal. On the date of hearing, after service of notice, the petitioner was absent and the appeals were heard ex parte. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals on the basis of the materials on record after hearing the State representative.

(3.) UNDER section 24(1) of the Act, the Tribunal shall refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of its appellate order. It is remarkable that though at the appellate stage in the grounds of appeal and at the reference stage the petitioner's advocate raised the question that Sri Ramrao's order was contrary to the principles of natural justice, the learned Tribunal refrained from expressing any view on the question and yet he referred it as a question of law for the answer of the High Court. It is elementary that whenever a question of law is raised before the Tribunal, he must apply his mind to the question, categorically give an answer whether it raises any question of law or not, and thereafter refer the question if it is one of law arising out of the appellate order.