- (1.) HEARD counsel for the petitioner and GP -III for the respondents.
(2.) THE petitioner claimed the benefit of S.O. 479 issued under the Industrial Policy, 1995 as modified by S.O. 58. The question that arose was whether the petitioner was qualified for the benefit conferred by the said Order. The matter had earlier come to this Court in WP(T) No. 441 of 2002 and this Court by way of an interim direction, directed the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to take a decision on the claim. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes passed an order, more or less remanding the proceeding to the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes to dispose of the matter, in accordance with law. Some of the arguments raised, in our view, were answered while making the remand. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court in the light of the order passed by Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and order Annexure 4, forwarding the proceedings to the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration) as contemplated by clause 18 of S.O. 479 dated 22.12.1995. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration) passed the impugned order, Annexure 5, rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner has, thereupon, approached this Court again with the present writ petition, challenging the decision of the Joint Commissioner. The petitioner also seeks to challenge the demand raised on rejection of its claim for the benefit of S.O. 479.
(3.) THE main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes rejected the claim of the petitioner without affording to it, an opportunity of being heard. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, by referring to S.O. 479 and clause 18 thereof, tried to argue that no hearing by the Joint Commissioner is contemplated. But, after all, a claim for benefit under S.O. 479, as modified by S.O. 58, is being made by the petitioner. Unless the Notification clearly precludes the application of the principles of natural justice, we feel that the petitioner should be given an opportunity of being heard, considering the nature of the claim and the consequences that will flow from the decision to be rendered by the Joint Commissioner. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the argument of learned Government Pleader that no opportunity of hearing needs be given by the Joint Commissioner. Of course, in paragraph 15 of counter affidavit, though the respondents have adopted the stand that no hearing was necessary, it is also indicated that if this Court directs that the petitioner should be heard, there will be no difficulty for giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.;