IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.620 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.620 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO.620 OF 2009 Sona Processor (India) Pvt.Ltd ..Petitioner vs Textile Committee & ors .. Respondents .. Mr.Niranjan Pandit with Ms.Trupti Kapadia i.b Joy Legal Consultants for Petitioners Mr.L.S.Shetty with Mr.G.Hariharan and Mr.H.K.Vardas i.b Dr.T.C.Kaushik for Respondent nos. 3 & 4. .. CORAM: F.I.Rebello and CORAM: F.I.Rebello and CORAM: F.I.Rebello and J.H.Bhatia, JJ J.H.Bhatia, JJ J.H.Bhatia, JJ DATED: 4th May, 2009 DATED: 4th May, 2009 DATED: 4th May, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. Two demand notices both dated 28th March, 2003 were served on the petitioners demanding cess under the provisions of the Textile Committee Act, 1963. The petitioner aggrieved by the said demands approached the Tribunal constituted under the Act raising various contentions. The matter pertains to demands for years 1999 to 2003. One of the contention which found favour with the Tribunal under Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Act have not been complied with in as much as no hearing has been granted to the petitioners herein. We may also mention that another ground had been raised by the petitioner that no cess could have been demanded from him as the activities carried on by the petitioner did not amount to "manufacture". 3. Subsequent to the demand, the petitioner was given a hearing and the petitioner was informed by communication dated 30th June, 1998 that there is no change in the original order. The petitioner aggrieved by the same preferred an appeal before the Tribunal being C.D.Appeal No.76/08. The petitioner was sent a communication of the order dated 29th December, 2008 intimating that an appeal lies only against a demand notice and as there was no demand notice, the appeal was not maintainable. It is this order which is the subject matter of the present petition. 4. At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the petitioner learned counsel submits that they approached the Tribunal against the communication of 30th June, 2008 whereby they were informed that there is no change in assessment. It is submitted that therefore, in fact what the A.O.did was to restore the original demand notices and consequently an appeal would lie to the Tribunal. 5. In our opinion, though the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to give a hearing to the petitioner, the A.O. ought to have at least given some reasons for rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioner herein. We do not find that in the communication of 30th June, 2008 any such reasons. Apart from that after rejecting the contention of the petitioner fresh demands according to law had to be issued to the petitioner which has not been done. In the light of the above, following orer is passed: The A.O.-respondent No.1 apart from other contentions which may be raised by the petitioner also to deal with the contention that the activities carried by them did not attract cess as it is not manufacture. The entire exercise to be completed within 3 months from today. The petitioner to appear before the A.O. on 10th June, 2009 at 11 a.m. for further drections. Time to complete the assessment would be three months from that date. Consequently, respondents not to act on Exhibits M, N and O or take any coercive steps against the petitioner as demands against the petitioner is yet to be crystallised. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. { J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J } { J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J } { J.H.Bhatia, J } { F.I.Rebello, J }