IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.688 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.8.2010 M/s Jasch Industries Ltd. -----Petitioner. Vs. Presiding Officer and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. J.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. O.S. Batalvi, Advocate for the respondents. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This writ petition seeks quashing of order of the Textile Committee Cess Appellate Tribunal, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against order of the Assessing Authority under the provisions of the Textile Committee Act, 1963 (for short, “the Act”) and Textile Committee (Cess) Rules, 1975 (for short, “the Rules”). 2. Case of the petitioner is that it is manufacturer of ‘rexine’. It does not fall in the ambit of the term ‘textile’ under Section 2(g) of the Act. However, the impugned notice, Annexure P-1, was issued to the petitioner, proposing to levy cess. C.W.P. No.688 of 2009 Although the petitioner filed its objections, order Annexure P-2 was passed by the Assessing Authority, requiring the petitioner to submit its return and pay cess. The said order failed to deal with the objections of the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal, which has been dismissed, holding that there being no provision for passing a speaking order, the order of the Assessing Authority did not call for any interference. It was further held that the assessment of cess could be made not only on the basis of information received from the sources mentioned under Rule 8 of the Rules, but also from other sources. Reliance was placed on a judgment of Calcutta High Court dated 14.3.2007 in W.P. No.5574(W) of 2002 M/s Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Contention raised in support of this petition is that the Tribunal erred in law in upholding the impugned order of assessment without dealing with the objections of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the judgment in M/s Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd.’s case (supra) was applicable only to a situation where figure from sources stipulated under Rule 8 of the Rules were not available. In the present case, such figures were available, as the petitioner was paying excise duty, which is clear from certificate, Annexure P-3. 2 C.W.P. No.688 of 2009 5. Learned counsel for the respondents is unable to show how in such a situation judgment of Calcutta High Court M/s Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd.’s case (supra) will apply. He is also unable to dispute that the Assessing Authority is required to follow the principles of natural justice and to pass a speaking order after giving hearing and dealing with objections raised which is a mandate for any quasi judicial authority. Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar v. Dy. CIT & others [2007] 2 SCC 181, para 23. 6. In view of above, we allow this petition, quash Annexures P-2, P-5 and P-6 and remand the matter to the Assessing Authority, respondent No.3, for passing a fresh order on merits in accordance with law. 7. The petitioner may appear before the said authority for further proceedings on November 15, 2010. It is made clear that deposit made by the petitioner will abide by further orders that may be passed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 05, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3