- (1.) IT is alleged by the petitioner that after the survey on 12. 7. 2007 by the team of the Respondent- Department, the petitioner was called upon by the Deputy Commissioner (SIB) Trade Tax, Muzaffar Nagar (hereinafter referred for short as DC SIB) for producing the accounts, which the petitioner claims to have produced. The petitioner also claims to have participated in the proceedings be fore the said DC SIB. Further, according to the petitioner, the DC SIB submitted a report as a result of the said inquiry, whereafter notice for provisional assessment has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner further submits that despite request of the petitioner copy of the report submitted by the DC SIB has not been supplied to the petitioner. The prayer in this writ petition is to restrain the provi sional assessment proceedings till the supply of the said report of the DC SIB.
(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. There are only two possibilities namely either that some part of the said report of the DC SIB will be relied upon in the provisional assessment proceed ings; or that the report will be ignored in the sense that no part of it will be considered in those proceedings. In the event of the first of the aforesaid two possibilities, the report or its part will constitute material adverse to the petitioner which is proposed to be relied upon, either by itself or coupled with other facts and/or circumstances, for recording findings against the petitioner. In any case it may influence the mind of the Authority making the provisional assessment. Therefore the principles of natural justice would require that such material must be disclosed to the petitioner before it is used against the petitioner. In Mazharul Islam Hashmi v. State of U. P. and another, AIR 1979 SC 1237, the Apex Court has held that other person must know what he has to met in that case, in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, AIR 1978 SC 851, it was held that a person likely to suffer civil consequences is entitled to the report, which is being relied upon to take a decision against him. Again in respect of the departmental inquiry, a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 held that copy of the inquiry report which is taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority must be communicated to the delin quent employee before final decision is taken by the disciplinary authority other wise his decision would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The correctness of the Apex Court decision in the case of Mohd. Ramzan (supra) came to be considered by a Constitution Bench in Managing Director E. G. I. L v. B. Karunakar and others, AIR 1994 SC 1074 and affirming the same it was held that "before the disciplinary authority comes to its own conclusion, the delin quent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the inquiry officer's find ing".
(3.) THOUGH the aforesaid law was in respect of the proceedings arising out of a disciplinary matter, in our view the dictum would apply to all such cases where an order passed is likely to cause civil consequences whether judicial, quasi judicial or administrative. However, the said requirement may be checked by leg islature by making appropriate provision but in the absence thereof, we have no manner of doubt that no document or material can be relied by an authority for passing an order without disclosing the same to the affected party otherwise the ultimate order would be in violation of natural justice. The present case also where assessment is proposed by the authority based on a survey and the report sub mitted on the basis of the said survey, the authority before acting upon such report is bound to disclose the said report to the person concerned otherwise it would amount to take a decision without disclosing adverse material to the per son concerned. The assessing authority has declined to supply copy of the report by his letter dated 15. 12. 2007 on the ground that the same is confidential and, there fore, need not be furnished to the petitioner particularly when inference drawn from the said report has I already been noticed in the show cause notice. In our view the aforesaid decision of the assessing authority cannot be sustained. There does not appear any logical reason to hold the report of the DC SIB to be confi dential and accordingly for not supplying the same, if it is proposed by the depart ment to rely upon that report in the provisional assessment.;