House Circle And Another vs Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3498 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

Civil Revision Nos.224 & 225 of 2018 Decided on:4th July, 2021

.

Civil Revision No.224 of 2018.

Superintending Engineer/Dehar Power

House Circle and another ..........Petitioner

Versus

Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal and others .......Respondents ____________________________________________________ Civil Revision No.225 of 2018.

Superintending Engineer/Dehar Power House Circle and another ..........Petitioner

Versus

Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal and others ........Respondents ____________________________________________________ Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath, Acting Chief Justice.

Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Ajay Vaidya, Sr. Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.2 and 3.

(Through Video Conferencing) ______________________________________________________

Ravi Malimath, Acting Chief Justice (Oral).

CMP(M) Nos.1029 of 2017 in Civil Revision No.225 of 2018 and CMP No.1030 of 2017 in Civil Revision No.224 of 2018.

.

1. In terms of the order dated 25.10.2019, passed in

Civil Appeal Nos.8276-8277 of 2019 and connected matters, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has since condoned the delay, hence,

both the applications are disposed off.

Civil Revision Nos.224 & 225 of 2018.

2.

The following substantial question of law arises for

consideration in these petitions:-

Whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in

disposing off the appeals/review applications of the

appellants-petitioners without giving an opportunity of

hearing or without even taking up the case for

consideration?

3. The petitioners had filed appeal Nos.33 and 34 of

2013 before the Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal, Dharamshala,

being aggrieved by the impugned order therein. The matter was

pending consideration. At the same time, Appeal No.11/2014,

titled M/s TCM Steel (India) versus Dy. Excise and Taxation

___________________________________________________ Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, pertaining to another

assessee, was taken up for consideration.

4. By the common order dated 18.06.2015, passed by

.

the Tribunal in Appeal No.11 of 2014, the appeals No.33 & 34 of

2013 of the petitioners herein, were also disposed off on reasons

assigned therein. While doing so, in Para-6 of the order dated

18.06.2015, the Tribunal disposed off the appeals of the

petitioners herein on the ground that the issues that arise for

consideration in the petitioners' appeal, are since covered by the

said judgment. Thereafter, the Review Application No.6/2015 in

Appeal No.33 of 2013 and Review Application No.7 of 2013 in

Appeal No.34 of 2013 were filed by the petitioners before the

Tribunal, which were also rejected by a common order dated

23.08.2016. Hence, these revisions.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that

petitioners' appeals No.33 & 34 of 2013 were required to be

considered independently on merits. However, both the appeals

have been disposed off by the Tribunal, while considering appeal

No.11 of 2014, pertaining to another assessee. Therefore, neither

the petitioners herein were given any opportunity of hearing nor

they were even aware that their appeals were disposed off on that

day.

6. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate

General submits that since the issues are already covered by

common questions of law, there is no necessity to hear the

.

petitioners once again.

7. However, on hearing learned counsels, we are of the

considered view that an adequate opportunity should have been

granted to the petitioners while disposing off the appeals. It is

needless to say that no orders could be passed behind the back of

the litigant. That a person has a right of being heard. That any

order which is passed without hearing a person, is void.

8. Under these circumstances, the substantial question

of law is answered in favour of the assesses/petitioners and

against the respondents. The impugned order dated 18.06.2015,

passed by the Himachal Pradesh Tax Tribunal, Dharamshala,

Camp at Shimla, in Appeal No.11/2014, titled M/s TCM Steel

(India) versus Dy. Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-

Appellate Authority, thereby also disposing off the Appeals No.33

& 34 of 2013 of the petitioners, titled (i) M/s Superintending

Engineer/Dehar Power House Circle, BBMB, (PW) Slapper versus

Excise and Taxation Officer, Sundernagar, District Mandi (H.P.)

and (ii) titled M/s Superintending Engineer/Bhakra PHs Circle,

BBMB (PW), Nangal versus Excise and Taxation Officer,

Sundernagar, District Mandi (H.P.), is set aside, in so far as it

pertains to Appeals No.33 & 34 of 2013. Consequently, the order

dated 23.08.2016, passed by the said Tribunal, in Review

.

Application No.6/2015 in Appeal No.33 of 2013 and Review

Application No.7/2015 in Appeal No.34 of 2013, is also set aside.

The aforesaid Appeals No.33 & 34 of 2013 of the petitioners are

restored to the respective files. The Himachal Pradesh Tax

Tribunal, Dharamshala, is directed to hear the Appeals No.33 &

34 of 2013 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders

thereon, as expeditiously as possible.

9. Both the revision petitions are accordingly disposed

off. Pending miscellaneous applications are also disposed off.

                                                   ( Ravi Malimath )
                                                  Acting Chief Justice





                                                ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua )
         August 04, 2021                              Judge
          (Yashwant)