Page 129 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

2020 ] SUKH SAGAR METALS (P) LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 807

(i) The department should have collected the proof of amount
received from the consignees, statement of consignees, re-
ceipts of sale proceeds by the consignor and its disposal.
(vi) In the instant case, though the petitioner was granted an opportuni-
ty of being heard, but, while passing the Order-in-Original, the ad-
judicating authority has not dealt with the main contention ad-
vanced on behalf of the petitioner and no reasons have been as-
signed for differing with the decisions rendered in the case of R.A.
Castings Ltd. In this context, reference may be made to the decision
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner,
Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract Act and Leasing, Kota v.
Shukla and Brothers, reported in (2010) 4 Supreme Court Cases 785 =
2011 (22) S.T.R. 105 (S.C.). In the said decision the Hon’ble Supreme
Court vide para 14 has held [as] under :-
“14. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients : firstly,
the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the
authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and grant-
ed an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by
the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion
showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them
could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the
order itself.”
Further, the High Court of Gujarat, in the case of Vadilal Gases Ltd. v. Un-
ion of India, reported in (2015) 64 Taxmann.com 56 (Gujarat) = 2016 (332)
E.L.T. 625 (Guj.), in paras 10 and 11, has held as under :-
“10. At this juncture, reference may be made to the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Tax
v. Shukla and Brothers (2010) 4 SCC 785 on which reliance has been
placed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner wherein the Court
has held that the principles of natural justice has twin ingredients;
firstly the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action
of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and
granted an opportunity of hearing; and secondly, the orders so
passed by the authorities should give reasons for arriving at any
conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either
of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case viti-
ate the order itself.
11. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the above
decision, while it cannot be said that the impugned orders are total-
ly non-reasoned orders, at the same time, the main contention ad-
vanced on behalf of the petitioner has not been dealt with and no
reasons have been assigned for not accepting the same. The im-
pugned order does not show that the authority concerned has ap-
plied its mind to the contention raised by the petitioner. Therefore,
as held by the Supreme Court in the above decision, the principles
of natural justice would stand violated in the light of the fact that
the concerned authority has not applied its mind to the principal
contention raised by the petitioner, inasmuch as, it has not given
any reason in respect thereof.”

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  129