JUDGMENT
K.A. Swami, C.J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated March 4, 1997, passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P. No. 2941 of 1997 on the ground that it is open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order of assessment challenged in the writ petition. As the matter falls in a narrow compass, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) was directed to take notice. Accordingly, he appears for the respondents.Therefore, the appeal is admitted and heard for final disposal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the Additional Government Pleader (Taxes). The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of assessment has been passed without affording an opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner. Though the petitioner/appellant sought for supply of several records by way of letters referred to in the very order of assessment, these records were not supplied to the petitioner/appellant. However, the order of assessment came to be passed. As such, the petitioner/appellant had no opportunity to explain the circumstances. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer also has stated in the course of his order thus :
“To a notice issued, the dealer addressed to this office, on March 23, 1996 and April 9, 1996 requested the xerox copies of D-7 records for filing their objections. In this office reference 5th cited the dealers were informed that the D-7 copies may be received from the Enf. Erode Group I, Erode. Again the dealers in their letter dated September 3, 1996 requested further time for filing objections up to September 30, 1996. But so far the dealers did not file any kind of objections so far till this date.
It is presumed that the dealers had no any objections to offer against the proposals and finally determine the total and taxable turnover as Rs. 3,04,04,375 and Rs. 3,04,04,375 to the best of judgment on revision under section and assessed the turnover at 10 per cent in the absence of forms under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Tax due : Rs. 30,40,438.00 paid
Balance : Rs. 30,40,438.00
Penalty under section 9(2) read with section 16(2) :
150 per cent on the total tax due is also proposed.
Penalty : Rs. 45,60,657.00 paid :
Balance : Rs. 45,60,657.00
Notices are issued for the above.”
This very statement made in the order of assessment goes to show that the petitioner/appellant had no opportunity whatsoever. One of the principles of natural justice is that no order visiting with civil consequences should be passed affording an opportunity. Therefore, we are of the view that the order passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Park Road Circle, Erode, is an ex parte order in the sense that it has been passed without affording an opportunity whatsoever to the assessee to put forth his case.
3. The next question is as to the terms on which the order of assessment could be interfered with. As per the assessment order, the taxable turnover has been assessed to Rs. 3,04,04,375 and the tax has been assessed to Rs. 30,40,438 and a penalty 1 1/2 times the tax has been levied. If the appellant is driven to prefer an appeal against the order of assessment, therein also, the appellant could get the relief of remitting the matter to the assessing officer, as the assessment has been made without affording an opportunity. However, in the appeal the appellant would be required to deposit at least 25 per cent of the tax assessed. Under these circumstances, when it was put to the appellant that it would be necessary to deposit 25 per cent of the tax in the event he were to file the appeal as directed by the learned single Judge as such, why the appellant should not deposit the same amount if we were to exercise our jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant after consulting the appellant submits that the appellant is prepared to deposit 25 per cent of the tax assessed. We make it clear that the exercise of our jurisdiction is not based on this condition, because, when once in the course of judicial review this Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party is visited with an order involving civil consequences without affording an opportunity, it becomes our duty to interfere with such an order, in order to ensure that the Tribunals functioning within the jurisdiction of this Court function properly within the parameters of their jurisdiction and do not in violation of the principles of natural justice. That is the constitutional obligation placed on this Court in exercising the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. However, the appellant has agreed to deposit the amount. The learned Government Pleader (Taxes) also submits that in the event the appellant deposits 25 per cent of the tax assessed, there would be no objection for remitting the matter to the assessing officer and reconsidering the matter afresh.
4. Accordingly, we allow the appeal, set aside the order dated March 4, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge and allow the Writ Petition No. 2941 of 1997 in the following terms :
1. The order of assessment dated January 28, 1997 passed by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Park Road Circle, Erode, in C.S.T. No.400360/90-91 is quashed on condition that the appellant deposits 25 per cent of the tax assessed on or before March 31, 1997.
2. On such deposit being made, the first respondent, viz., the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Park Road Circle, Erode, shall issue notice to the petitioner/appellant as to on what ground he wants to assess it.
3. On such notice being served, it is open to the petitioner/appellant to put forth their objections and produce the records. Further before such a notice is issued, the records that were sought by the assessee, as mentioned in the impugned order of assessment which is quashed, shall also be furnished to him.
4. The assessment proceedings shall be completed on or before the end of July, 1997.
5. In the event it is found that the assessee is not taxable, the amount so deposited be refunded to it with interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of deposit, till the date of payment.
6. In the event the appellant fails to deposit the amount, the assessment order shall stand restored.
5. No costs.
6. C.M.P. No. 3494 of 1997 is dismissed.
7. Appeal allowed.