L.RATH, J. - (1.) THE facts leading to this case lie in a short compass. The original petitioner having died during the pendency of this case his legal representatives have been substituted. The petitioner was assessed to sales tax for the period from June, 1953 to March, 1962, but on account of non -payment of the tax, a certificate proceeding was initiated against him at the instance of the Sales Tax Officer as the requisitioning officer. The petitioner having been issued notice in respect of the proceeding, filed objection denying his liability and inter alia took the plea of the demand being barred by limitation. On 7 -7 -1972 the Certificate Officer held the cues from June, 1953 to June, 1960 to be barred by limitation and the certificate holder was directed to specify the arrear dues from June, T960 to March, 1962. In appeal filed by the State against the order passed by the Certificate Officer, the appellate authority remanded the matter to determine the question of limitation with reference to the assessment dates for the different periods of assessment. It is the petitioner's case that after remand, the certificate holder on being called upon furnished intimation through his letter on 2 -8 -1978 to the Certificate Officer indicating the dates of assessment for the period from March, 1953 to March, 1962 and the Certificate Officer by his order of 19 -5 -1984 held the tax assessed from 14 -5 -1958 as not barred by limitation and hence determined Rs. 2,989 -88 as being due from the petitioner. Even, though such order was passed, yet the certificate was not amended nor any fresh notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of such re -determined certificate amount. Thsreafter, for non -payment of the dues, orders were passed on 25 -5 -1934 for issue of sale proclamation of the immovable properties of the petitioner list of which had been supplied by the certificate holder and similar order was passed on 29 -6 -1984. The petitioner carried an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate which having failed, he has come before this Court.
(2.) MR . N. C. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioner, though tried to canvass various objections as to the non -executability of the certificate, yet ultimately confined his submission only to one point, namely, the Certificate Officer was under obligation as per Section 10 of the Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962 to have issued a fresh notice and copy as provided for in Section 6 of the Act and that having not been done, the entire certificate proceeding has become vulnerable. It is his further submission that the petitioner as of right was entitled to be apprised of the letter of the certificate holder regarding the dates of assessment so that he would have been in a position to file objections as regards any dues having been barred by limitation and non -affording of such opportunity is hit by the principles of natural justice. The order of 19 -5 -1984 passed by the Sales Tax Officer so far as relavant is to the following effect: '............Seen the order dated 30 -7 -1977 of the A.D.M. in Certificate Appeal No. 12/16 of 1972/74 wherein the learned A.D.M, had ordered that the Certificate Officer should ascertain the date of assessment in respect of each quarter and to disallow only such claims that are more than 12 years old from the date of assessment. Also seen the letter Mo. 3966 dated 2 -8 -12 -73 wherein the C.Hr. has supplied the particulars about the date of assessment of safes tax of each quarter. As the requisition was fifed on 15 -5 -1970, safes tax assessed from 14 -5 -1958 is not barred by the period of 12 years' limitation. As such the C. Dr. is liable to pay Rs. 2,9S9. S3. If the C. Dr. fails to pay the entire C dues by 25 -5 -1984 sale proceedings of the immovable supplied by the C. Hr. put up on 25 -5 -1984.' The order shows the Certificate Officer to have determined certain amounts as claimed to be not barred by limitation and has determined the dues to be Rs. 2,939. 83. Before such conclusion was reached by the Certificate Officer, the Certificate Debtor was to have an opportunity to challenge the same. Specific provision is made in Section 10 of the Act for the purpose which states that the Certificate Officer may subject to the law of limitation, at any time and shall upon receipt of intimation, if any, under Sub -section (3) of Section 4 amend the certificate Inter alia by alteration of the amount claimed therein. The section thus vests a power in the Certificate Officer to alter the certificate amount and also imposes an obligation upon him to do so in the event a report is made to him under Sub -section (3) of Section 4 which provides that the requisitioning officer may at any time intimate the Certificate Officer regarding any adjustment or reduction in the certificate dues made after issue of the requisition. The proviso to Section 10 provides that when any amendment is made which as such includes any alteration in the certificate dues, a fresh notice and copy shall be issued as provided in Section 6. Section 6 is as follows : '6. Service of notice and copy of certificate on certificate debtor - When a certificate has been filed in the office of a Certificate Officer under Section 3 or Section 5, he shall cause to be served upon the Certificate Debtor, in the prescribed manner, a notice in the prescribed form and a copy of the certificate.' What is certemplated thus is once the certificate amount is altered, it is incumbent upon the Certificate Officer to issue a notice in the prescribed form and also a fresh copy of the certificate as altered. From the order of 19 -5 -1984 it does not appear that either any fresh notice in the prescribed form was issued to the petitioner or a copy of the altered certificate was served upon him. It does not even appear from the order that in fact the certificate itself was altered for a fresh amount. Had such notice been served upon the petitioner and a copy of the certificate been given to him, he would have been in a position to contest the demand either on the ground of limitation or otherwise by filing fresh objection under Section 8. Instead the Certificate Officer took upon himself the responsibility of executing the certificate for the new amount without affording opportunity to the petitioner as required under law.
(3.) IN view of that, we have no doubt that the entire proceeding has become vitiated and hence the orders passed under Annexure -4 series and Annexure -5 are liable to be quashed.;