HINDUSTAN TIN MANUFACTURING COMPANY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Miscellaneous No. 2299 of 2002 is allowed. Replication to the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents is taken on record.

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of tin containers. It filed its returns regarding sales for the assessment year 1994-95. The Assessing Authority found that the petitioner was liable to pay a net amount of Rs. 39,697 after adjusting the amount already paid under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It also noted that the petitioner had not made the deposit of the tax on account of the fact that it wanted adjustment against the amount of Rs. 62,620, which was lying with the department for the assessment year 1993-94 on account of payment of purchase tax. The revisional authority gave a notice dated March 12, 2001 to the petitioner calling upon it to appear on March 22, 2001. The representative of the petitioner appeared and requested for adjournment to a date in the first week of April. However, the case was adjourned to March 29, 2001. The petitioner alleges that its representative Ashok Kumar, the Office Assistant went to the office of the revisional authority at 11 0' clock but the officer was not present. He waited till 12 noon and came back thereafter. However, the revisional authority passed the order dated March 29, 2001. A copy of the order is at annexure P-3. By this order, the petitioner has been held liable to pay an amount of Rs. 7,87,991. A perusal of the order shows that a total penalty of Rs. 6 lacs was imposed. An amount of Rs. 1,54,000 approximately was also levied by way of interest. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that the order passed by the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice. The money deposited by the petitioner was already lying with the department. Nothing was due from it. A penalty of Rs. 6 lacs has been arbitrarily imposed. On this basis, it is claimed that the impugned order be quashed.