- (1.) Admitted. Pleading of the parties are complete. By consent writ petition placed on board and called out for hearing.
(2.) The petitioner is the Haryana State Electricity Board having its Civil Maintenance Division, Panipat Thermal Power Station, Assan, Panipat. The third respondent is the assessing authority, under section 5 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 (hereinafter called the Act). The second respondent is the appellate committee constituted under the Act. It is not in dispute that the petitioner who was supposed to file the return under Section 5 of the Act, failed to file the same. Consequently, the assessing authority in exercise of its powers assessed the liability of the petitioner and served the assessment order-cum-water services cess bill for the period from February 1, 1992 to October 31, 1992, Annexure P-2. The petitioner carried an appeal to the appellate committee and the appellate committee vide its order dated August 31, 1994, Annexure P-4, dismissed the appeal. It is this order of the appellate committee which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order of the assessing authority urged that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had at filed the return, yet under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, it was obligatory upon the assessing authority to hear the petitioner before finalising the liability and issuing the assessment order-cum-water services cess bill from February 1, 1992 to October 31, 1992. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to our notice the provisions of Section 6(1-A) of the Act. He urged that the order passed by the assessing authority is in violation of the principles of natural justice and if that be so, the same be set aside. He further urged that the appellate committee who should have accepted the contention of the petitioner, has also overlooked the provisions of Section 5(2) as well as Section 6(1-A) of the Act and erroneously dismissed the appeal holding that there is no provision for bearing the petitioner. Mr. Vashisht, the learned counsel for the respondent, however, supported the order and urged that in a case of this nature where the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act, by not filing the return, the assessing authority was justified in passing ex parte order and serving the assessment order-cum-water services cess bill for the disputed period. He urged that a person who commits default in following the provisions of law cannot plead the violation of the principles of natural justice.;