To recapitulate the events, the appellant was accorded certain
benefits under Notification dated July 08, 1999. This Notification
stands nullified by Section 154 of the Act of 2003, which has been
given retrospective effect. The legal consequence of the
aforesaid statutory provision is that the amount with which the
appellant was benefitted under the aforesaid Notification becomes
refundable. Even after the notice is issued, the appellant cannot
take any plea to retain the said amount on any ground
whatsoever as it is bound by the dicta in R.C. Tobacco (supra).
Likewise, even the officer who passed the order has no choice but
to follow the dicta in R.C. Tobacco (supra). It is important to note
that as far as quantification of the amount is concerned, it is not
disputed at all. In such a situation, issuance of notice would be
an empty formality and we are of the firm opinion that the case
stands covered by 'useless formality theory'.
In Escorts Farms Ltd. (Previously known as M/s. Escorts
Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd.) v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division,
Nainital, U.P. & Ors.24, this Court, while reiterating the position
that rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial
justice, held that, at the same time, it would be of no use if it
amounts to completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility
of any change in the decision of the case on merits. It was so
explained in the following terms:
“64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a
valuable right. Denial of such right is serious
breach of statutory procedure prescribed and
violation of rules of natural justice. In these
appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some
other transferees, we have found that the terms of
government grant did not permit transfers of land
without permission of the State as grantor.
Remand of cases of a group of transferees who
were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal
consequence, more so, when on this legal question
all affected parties have got full opportunity of
hearing before the High Court and in this appeal
before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be
followed for doing substantial justice and not for
completing a mere ritual of hearing without
possibility of any change in the decision of the case
on merits. In view of the legal position explained
by us above, we, therefore, refrain from remanding
these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4458-4459 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 37108-37109 OF 2012)
M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
EXCISE, GAUHATI & ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Citation;(2015) 8 SCC519
Print Page
benefits under Notification dated July 08, 1999. This Notification
stands nullified by Section 154 of the Act of 2003, which has been
given retrospective effect. The legal consequence of the
aforesaid statutory provision is that the amount with which the
appellant was benefitted under the aforesaid Notification becomes
refundable. Even after the notice is issued, the appellant cannot
take any plea to retain the said amount on any ground
whatsoever as it is bound by the dicta in R.C. Tobacco (supra).
Likewise, even the officer who passed the order has no choice but
to follow the dicta in R.C. Tobacco (supra). It is important to note
that as far as quantification of the amount is concerned, it is not
disputed at all. In such a situation, issuance of notice would be
an empty formality and we are of the firm opinion that the case
stands covered by 'useless formality theory'.
In Escorts Farms Ltd. (Previously known as M/s. Escorts
Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd.) v. Commissioner, Kumaon Division,
Nainital, U.P. & Ors.24, this Court, while reiterating the position
that rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial
justice, held that, at the same time, it would be of no use if it
amounts to completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility
of any change in the decision of the case on merits. It was so
explained in the following terms:
“64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a
valuable right. Denial of such right is serious
breach of statutory procedure prescribed and
violation of rules of natural justice. In these
appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some
other transferees, we have found that the terms of
government grant did not permit transfers of land
without permission of the State as grantor.
Remand of cases of a group of transferees who
were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal
consequence, more so, when on this legal question
all affected parties have got full opportunity of
hearing before the High Court and in this appeal
before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be
followed for doing substantial justice and not for
completing a mere ritual of hearing without
possibility of any change in the decision of the case
on merits. In view of the legal position explained
by us above, we, therefore, refrain from remanding
these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4458-4459 OF 2015
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 37108-37109 OF 2012)
M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. .....APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL
EXCISE, GAUHATI & ORS.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
Citation;(2015) 8 SCC519
