SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Guj) 63

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :N.B.PATEL, P.R.GOKULAKRISHNAN
SHREE RAMA PACKAGING AHMEDABAD - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
S.C.A. 1574 of .
Decided On : 05/01/1990

Advocates Appeared: J.D.AJMERA, PARESH M.DAVE, Sandip C.Shah

Headnote:

Principles Of Natural Justice – S.C.A – The contention of the petitioners is that the hearing was made by one Assistant Collector and the order was passed as regards the tariff heading by another Assistant Collector – Respondent states that factually it is correct to say that the hearing was made by one Assistant Collector and that the final order was passed by another Assistant Collector changing tariff heading – Held, In as much as Respondent accepts on the factual aspects of the case to the effect that the hearing was done by one Assistant Collector and the final order changing the tariff heading was passed by another Assistant Collector the same definitely violates the principles of natural justice and as such the order cannot stand – Hence Court quash the order impugned in this Special Civil Application only on this short ground and remand the case back to the file of the Assistant Collector to dispose of the matter on the basis of the original show cause notice issued – Order Accordingly

N. B. PATEL, P. R. GOKULAKRISHNAN, J.

( 1 ) RULE. Mr. J. D. Ajmera learned Counsel waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.

( 2 ) THE contention of the petitioners represented by Mr. Dave is that the hearing was made by one Assistant Collector and the order was passed as regards the tariff heading by another Assistant Collector. Mr. Ajmera states that factually it is correct to say that the hearing was made by one Assistant Collector and that the final order was passed by another Assistant Collector changing tariff heading. Originally the tariff heading was 39. 26 and subsequently it was changed to 39. 20. If the tariff heading is 39. 20 there will be a liability on the part of the petitioners to pay excise duty and if the tariff heading is 39. 26 there will be an exemption from payment of excise duty. In as much as Mr. Ajmera accepts on the factual aspects of the case to the effect that the hearing was done by one Assistant Collector and the final order changing the tariff heading was passed by another Assistant Collector the same definitely violates the principles of natural justice and as such the order cannot stand. Hence we quash the order impugned in this Special Civil Application only on this short ground and remand the case back to the file of the Assistant Collector to dispose of the matter on the basis of the original show cause notice issued. We direct the Assistant Collector on remand of this case to dispose of the same within two months from the date of receipt of the writ from this Court. The petitioners are directed to co-operate in the proceedings and to assist the Assistant Collector to dispose of the matter within the period mentioned by us. It is needless to say that the petitioners will have all liberties to agitate all points which they want to take before the Assistant Collector and it once the show cause notice issued is held to be is valid by the Assistant Collector necessary orders may be passed by the appropriate authorities for refunding the excess amount collected.

( 3 ) RULE is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. (KMV) Rule made absolute.


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top