Judgment:
JAIPUR BENCH
V. K. SINGHAL J. - The above three writ petitions have been filed challenging the assessment orders for the months of April, May and June, 1977, passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Entertainment Circle, Jaipur, under the provisions of the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter to be called as 'the Act'). All the three writ petitions are disposed of by a common order since the points involved are common.
A number of points have been raised in the writ petition and the basis for challenging the assessment orders directly in the High Court was mainly because the petitioner was not aware as to which of the two appellate authorities at Jaipur or Ajmer would hear the appeals.
The brief facts of the case are that on account of various discrepancies, notices were issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the entertainment tax be not levied under section 6 and the penalty also not be levied under section 10(3) of the Act.
The submission of Mr. Maloo, on behalf of the petitioner, is that notice was issued on December 31, 1979, fixing the date hearing on January 15, 1980, and a detailed reply was submitted and the case was examined and was reserved for judgment. The assessing authority has not passed the assessment order and fresh notices were again issued on January 19, 1982, fixing the date of hearing for January 25, 1982. The petitioner appeared before the assessing authority and submitted an application seeking adjournment on the ground that the hearing might be fixed at Jaipur, where the petitioners counsel as well as the headquarters of the assessing authority are situated. The assessing authority had not granted him the opportunity of taking the assistance of an advocate who could have submitted the case of the petitioner properly.
Mr. Bafna, appearing on behalf of the assessing authority, has informed that the assessee has appeared and produced the books of account and documents and, therefore, cannot have any grievance at this stage.
Without going in the various other objections raised by Mr. Maloo, I am of the opinion that the assessing authority should have provided reasonable opportunity to the assessee to take the assistance of his advocate. The case was once heard and reserved and no orders were passed. Although a detailed reply was submitted it has not been fully considered while framing the assessment and levying the penalty. The office of the Commercial Tax Officer was situated at Jaipur and that of the assessee at Beawar and, therefore, if the advocate of the assessee could not, for any reason, appear on the date fixed, the assessing authority could have either given an opportunity to the assessee or could have fixed the case at Jaipur. The assessment orders thus being contrary to the principles of natural justice and are set aside and the matter is sent back to the assessing authority with the directions that the petitioner may be given reasonable opportunity and thereafter the orders of assessment and penalty be framed. The petitioner would be free to challenge the said orders in appeals.
In the result, the writ, the petitions are partly allowed as indicated above.