JUDGMENT S. P. DAS GHOSH (Chairman). - The propriety of assessing entry tax on determining the approximate saleable value of goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area is under challenge in this application under section 8 of the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal Act, 1987, which is in the nature of a writ petition. 2. The case of the applicants is that the applicants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are members of the applicant No. 1, Calcutta Timber Merchants Association. The petitioner No. 1 is an association of persons who trade in wood and timber products as wholesale dealers, saw mill owners and retailers. Under section 6 of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), a tax on the entry of every specified goods (goods specified in the Schedule to the Act) into the Calcutta metropolitan area (for consumption, use or sale therein) from any place outside that area is levied and collected. The tax levied is payable on demand. Every dealer of specified goods is to deliver to the prescribed authority a declaration in the prescribed form relating to such goods. On the basis of such declaration the prescribed authority is to assess, after making such verification of the specified goods as it may consider necessary, the tax leviable on the entry of such goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area. The applicants allege that at the entry point of wood and timber, brought by them from places outside the Calcutta metropolitan area, the assessing authorities are ignoring the declaration made by the importer as to be quantity, specification and value of the goods and are also ignoring the value mentioned in the documents in respect of the purchase of the goods, though these documents are issued or certified by the original sellers, which are mostly Government departments or Government owned or controlled agencies without assigning any reason whatsoever. In order to enrich the coffer of the State, the assessing authorities are arbitrarily and with ill-motive fixing the value of the goods which is even two to five times more than the actual value and are thereafter determining the tax liability on such arbitrary and fictitious value and are forcing the importer to make payment of such exorbitant amount of tax on threat of confiscation and other coercive and penal actions provided by the Act. The applicants allege that the taxing authorities are not giving any reasons as to why they are not agreeing to the declared value of the goods. 3. The further case of the applicants is that the applicants believe that the higher authorities of the State of West Bengal have issued a secret command or order upon the assessing authority to fix arbitrary and fanciful value of the goods without any basis with the ulterior object of enriching the coffer of the State. No reason is recorded by the assessing authority in support of the decision to enhance the value of the goods. There is no scope of effective appeal against the order of assessment, as the respondents are not giving any show cause notice and are not recording any reason in support of their decision to enhance the value of the goods. The applicants challenge the provisions of rule 12(2) of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" for the sake of brevity) under which the assessing authority, if not satisfied about the reasonableness of the value shown or declared by the dealer, can determine the approximate saleable value of the goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area to the best of his judgment for levying entry tax on such goods. According to the applicants entry tax on sale value of the goods after being brought within the protected area is not authorised by entry 52 of List II in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution read with article 246 of the Constitution. Rule 12(2) of the Rules is ultra vires the provisions of the Act for travelling beyond the four corners of the Act. When entry tax is to be levied ad valorem, only the value of the goods meaning thereby the cost price of such goods is to be taken into consideration and other items such as shipping duties, insurance or excise duty or sales tax cannot be added to the cost price for the purpose of assessing the valuation of the goods. If sales tax or excise duty is included in assessing the value of the goods, after entry in the concerned area, sales tax payable there will amount to double taxation and will be bad in law. If sales tax or excise duty is included in assessing the value of the goods, after entry in the concerned area, sales tax payable there will amount to double taxation and will be bad in law. On alleging these facts, the applicants have prayed for declaration that sections 6, 11, 14 and 15 of the Act and rule 12(2) of the Rules are bad, illegal, void and ultra vires articles 14, 19, 21 and 304(b) of the Constitution as also the principles of natural justice. The applicants have prayed, alternatively, for a declaration that the respondents have no power or authority under the Act or the Rules to assess, levy or collect taxes on entry of wood and timber brought to the Calcutta metropolitan area from outside the area, except in accordance with the principles of natural justice, namely, (a) upon issuing a notice on the consignor or consignee or the nominated dealer of the goods who intend to bring the goods within the Calcutta metropolitan area, recording reasons for non-satisfaction about the reasonableness of the value of the goods in question shown or declared by such consignee or consignor or dealer; (b) giving an opportunity to the consignor or consignee or the dealer to make a representation in writing against such reasons; (c) thereafter upon giving a personal hearing to the consignor or consignee or dealer as the case may be and (d) passing a reasoned order in case of non-acceptance of the value of the goods shown or declared by the dealer or consignor or consignee, as the case may be. 4. The application is resisted by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition, wherein all the material allegations in the application have been denied. The case of the respondents is that rule 12(1) and rule 12(2) of the Rules have been framed under section 14 of the Act and are to be followed by the assessing authorities. The procedure for best judgment assessment under rule 12(2) of the Rules by determining the approximate saleable value of the consignment of specified goods like timber, for entry of such goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area, has been approved by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of H. M. M. Ltd. v. Director of Entry Tax, West Bengal AIR 1983 SC 586 . The Honourable Supreme Court has considered the effect of rule 12(2) of the Rules and has declared it as valid. Timber is one of the specified goods in the Schedule of the Act and is exigible to entry tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There was colossal loss of revenue on account of under-valuation of the timber by the importing dealer in the value disclosed in the declaration in form IV as submitted by him. As such, the department thought it advisable to post the assessing authority stationed at different check-posts scattered all over West Bengal with the latest market valuation of the specified goods like timber/wood in the shape of "Market Bulletins". Such market bulletin is periodically revised after making proper survey of the market as regards the retail sale value of the specified goods. "Market Information Bulletins" are issued by the department from time to time for user by the assessing authorities at the time of assessment for the purpose of ascertaining the correctness of the value of the specified goods disclosed in the declaration in form IV and in appropriate cases for making best judgment assessment after discarding the valuation disclosed by the unscrupulous dealers in the declarations in form IV. 5. The further case of the respondents is that there is no provision in the Act for giving a personal hearing to each and every dealer before making an assessment under the Act. Rather such natural justice by way of allowing personal hearing has been more or less excluded from the provisions in the Act and instead the concept of summary assessment has been introduced in the Act read with the Rules. There is no question of existence of any manner of arbitrariness in the provisions of the Act and the Rules, particularly when there are elaborate provisions of appeal and revision against any order passed under the Act. 6. Before dealing with the respective contentions between the parties, it will be necessary to recite the relevant provisions in the Act and in the Rules for appreciating the rival contentions. Act : "Section 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) and (b) ............... 6. Before dealing with the respective contentions between the parties, it will be necessary to recite the relevant provisions in the Act and in the Rules for appreciating the rival contentions. Act : "Section 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, - (a) and (b) ............... (c) "Dealer", in relation to any specified goods entering the Calcutta metropolitan area, means a person, - (i) who either on his own account or on account of a principal or any other person causes such entry, or (ii) who takes delivery, or is entitled to take delivery, of such goods on such entry. Explanation I. - When the consignor or consignee of any specified goods entering the Calcutta metropolitan area nominates, according to such rules as may be prescribed, a person to be the dealer for the purposes of this Act, such person shall be deemed to be a dealer in relation to such specified goods. Explanation II. - .................." "Section 6. (1) Save as otherwise provided in this chapter, there shall be levied and collected, for the purposes of this Act, a tax on the entry of every specified goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area (for consumption, use or sale therein) from any place outside that area, at such rate, not exceeding the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the Schedule, as the State Government may, by notification, specify. (2)..................." "Section 11. (1) The tax levied under this Act shall be payable on demand and shall be collected by the State Government in such manner and through such agency as that Government may, by notification, specify. (2)........................" "Section 13. Every dealer of specified goods shall, on or before the entry of such goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area, deliver at a notified place, to the prescribed authority a declaration (in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed) relating to such goods : ..........................." "Section 14. (1) Where a declaration has been made under section 13 by a dealer, the prescribed authority shall, after making such verification of the specified goods as it may consider necessary, assess the tax leviable on the entry of such goods into Calcutta metropolitan area. (1) Where a declaration has been made under section 13 by a dealer, the prescribed authority shall, after making such verification of the specified goods as it may consider necessary, assess the tax leviable on the entry of such goods into Calcutta metropolitan area. (2) Where any dealer has omitted or failed to make the declaration, as required by section 13, the prescribed authority shall, after inspection and examination of the specified goods, assess the tax leviable under this Act on such goods and it may also impose on the dealer, in the prescribed manner, a penalty, not exceeding twice the amount of tax assessed by it. (3), (4) and (5)............. (6) The prescribed authority, may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, - (a) require any dealer - (i) to produce before it any accounts, register or document for examination; (i) to furnish any information relating to the stock of goods or purchases, sales or deliveries of goods by the dealer or relating to any other matters, as may be deemed necessary for the purpose of this section; (b) require any person who has in his possession, custody or control any specified goods or through whom the specified goods are suspected by the prescribed authority to have passed, to produce before it any accounts, register or document for examination with a view to ascertaining whether any tax leviable under this Act is being or has been assessed or duly paid. Section 15. (1) The amount of tax assessed under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 14 and the amount of penalty imposed under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of that section shall be paid forthwith by the dealer to the prescribed authority and that authority shall, on payment of the assessed amount of tax and the penalty, if any, grant to the dealer a receipt showing the payment of such amount. (2) and (3)........." Rules : Rule 12. Determination of value. (2) and (3)........." Rules : Rule 12. Determination of value. - (1) For the purpose of determining value of the goods, where tax under the Act is levied ad valorem, every dealer shall declare the value in a declaration in form IV referred to in rule 16 and such value shall include (a) the cost price of such goods as given in the bill or invoice or consignment note issued by the consignee or document of like nature, (b) shipping duties, (c) insurance, (d) excise duty, and (e) sales tax. Such declaration shall be submitted to the appropriate assessing officer along with a copy of the relevant bill, invoice, or consignment note issued by the consignor or other document of like nature and other documents in support of other charges, duties and fees, signed by the person issuing such bill, invoice, consignment note or other document. (2) If the appropriate assessing officer is satisfied about the reasonableness of such value quoted in the document submitted on behalf of the dealer he shall accept the same and levy tax accordingly. If the value is not ascertainable on account of non-availability or non-production of the bill or invoice or consignment note issued by the consignor or other document of like nature or other documents showing other charges, duties and fees, or if such assessing officer is not satisfied about the reasonableness of the value shown or declared by the dealer, such assessing officer shall determine the approximate saleable value of such goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area to the best of his judgment and shall levy tax accordingly." "Rule 16. Procedure for assessment of tax payable under the Act in the case of import by road. - (1) Every driver of a vehicle or any conveyance of any nature whatsoever or any person carrying load, who enters the Calcutta metropolitan area by road shall stop at the nearest check-post to enable the appropriate assessing officer to ascertain whether the said vehicle or conveyance or load contains any goods liable to tax under the Act. - (1) Every driver of a vehicle or any conveyance of any nature whatsoever or any person carrying load, who enters the Calcutta metropolitan area by road shall stop at the nearest check-post to enable the appropriate assessing officer to ascertain whether the said vehicle or conveyance or load contains any goods liable to tax under the Act. (2) In order to facilitate the examination of the goods by the appropriate assessing officer for determining the tax payable thereon, if any, under the Act, the dealer or his agent shall make a declaration in form IV, in triplicate, in respect of the goods brought and deliver the same to the appropriate assessing officer, duly verified and signed by him, along with a copy of transport challan or document by whatever name called issued by the transport authority or public carrier and a copy of the consignment note issued by the consignor or a copy of the bill or invoice in respect of the goods, signed by the person signing the original bill or invoice, or consignment note, as the case may be. (3) A declaration in form IV shall relate to a single consignment and shall contain the following particulars with regard to such consignment for proper assessment and collection of the tax : (a) Name and address of the consignor : (b) Name and address of the consignee : (c) Station of despatch : (d) Destination station within the Calcutta metropolitan area : (e) Description of goods : (f) Gross weight of goods including weight of containers and packing materials : (g) Quantity and value of such goods : (h) Particulars of bills or invoices or consignment notes issued by the consignor along with number of bundles or packages : (i) Mode of transport and particulars of document issued by the public carrier or of documents relating to the transport in the case of transport by private carrier : (j) Date of arrival or expected arrival of goods within the Calcutta metropolitan area : (k) Particulars of indemnity bond where delivery is taken from a public carrier on indemnity bond : (l) Whether the goods are intended for consumption, use or sale in the Calcutta metropolitan area : (m) If the goods are meant for destination outside the Calcutta metropolitan area, the ultimate destination of goods and the mode by which goods will be despatched : (n) Particulars of the contract of sale, if any, as a result of which the goods are to be despatched outside the Calcutta metropolitan area and the particulars of the contracting parties : (o) Reference to application, if any, made to customs authorities for obtaining clearance of the goods : Provided that the particulars specified in items (m), (n) and (o) shall apply only as respects goods meant for immediate export or despatch out of the Calcutta metropolitan area. Explanation. - For the purpose of this rule, the goods in relation to which the carrier has issued one transport document shall be treated to form one single consignment. (4) The appropriate assessing officer shall scrutinise the documents delivered to him and may make such other enquiry and verification including weighment as he may deem necessary and for this purpose he may call upon the dealer or his agent, if necessary, to open any bundle or bundles or package or packages for his examination. (4) The appropriate assessing officer shall scrutinise the documents delivered to him and may make such other enquiry and verification including weighment as he may deem necessary and for this purpose he may call upon the dealer or his agent, if necessary, to open any bundle or bundles or package or packages for his examination. When any goods are unloaded and bundle or bundles, or package or packages, are opened for examination the dealer or his agent shall bear all the expenses of unloading and re-loading, or opening and re-packing, the bundle or bundles or package or packages, and shall do the unloading and re-loading or opening and re-packing within the time allowed by the appropriate assessing officer. After such scrutiny, enquiry, verification, inspection or examination and after due consideration of such submissions or objections as the dealer or his agent may make in this regard, the appropriate assessing officer shall proceed to make an assessment of the tax payable, if any, one the entry of that particular consignment of goods covered by the declaration. In assessing the dealer the appropriate assessing officer shall make an assessment order in Part I of form V, in triplicate, showing - (a) the name of dealer or agent, (b) the date of import, (c) the name of the check-post where the goods enter into the Calcutta metropolitan area, (d) the description of the goods, (e) the weight or quantity or value of the goods which may be necessary for the purpose of assessment, and (f) the amount of tax assessed thereon. The appropriate assessing officer shall thereupon issue to the dealer or his agent a notice demanding immediate payment of the tax assessed in the form in Part II of form V. A copy of the declaration in form IV with a copy of the assessment order in Part I of form V and the notice in Part II of form V shall be handed over to the dealer or his agent for immediate payment. The other two copies of these documents shall be retained by the appropriate assessing officer. The other two copies of these documents shall be retained by the appropriate assessing officer. (5) Where any dealer or his agent has omitted or failed to make the declaration in form IV or where the declaration so made is not complete, or where the dealer or his agent has omitted or failed to produce supporting documents the appropriate assessing officer shall after such inspection and examination of the goods as may be necessary or practicable and after making such verification (including weighment) as he may deem necessary, assess to the best of his judgment the tax leviable under the Act on such goods. The provisions of sub-rule (4) shall apply mutatis mutandis to an assessment made under the sub-rule. (6) to (11).........." 7. Mr. Tapas Roy, the learned advocate for the applicants, has advanced no argument for declaration that sections 6, 11, 14 and 15 of the Act are bad, illegal, void and ultra vires articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution, though such a declaration has been sought for in the main application. His argument is directed against the provisions of rule 12(2) of the Rules. He has attacked rule 12(2) of the Rules on several grounds. His first contention is that the State Legislature has no authority, in exercise of its power under entry 52 of List II in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, to impose tax on saleable value. According to him, entry tax on saleable value is the same as sales tax. It is now well-settled that various entries in the three Lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution are not powers but fields of legislation and that widest amplitude should be given to the language of the three Lists. In interpreting an entry, it would not be reasonable to import any limitation by comparing or contrasting that entry with any other entry in the same List. [Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. v. State of U.P. [1991] 80 STC 270 (SC); AIR 1990 SC 1927 , India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu [1991] 188 ITR 690 (SC)]. Entries 52 and 54 in List II in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution read as follows : 52. Taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein. 54. Entries 52 and 54 in List II in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution read as follows : 52. Taxes on the entry of goods into a local area for consumption, use or sale therein. 54. Taxes on the sale or purchase of goods other than newspapers, subject to the provisions of entry 92-A of List I. The power to tax under entry 54 can be availed of only when there has, in fact, been "sale", as recognised by the general law. The expression "sale of goods" in entry 54 of List II has the same meaning which it has in the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 [State of Madras v. Gannon Dunkerley & Co. (Madras) Ltd. [1958] 9 STC 353 (SC); AIR 1958 SC 560 , Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1958] 9 STC 388 (SC); AIR 1958 SC 909 ]. As there will be no transfer of property in goods for cash or deferred payment or any valuable consideration at the time of assessment of entry tax on entry of goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area, entry tax on saleable value cannot be the same as sales tax under entry 54 in List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. 8. Section 6 of the Act is the charging section. Under it a tax on the entry of every specified goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area (for consumption use or sale therein) from any place outside that area is levied and collected at such rate, not exceeding the rate specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the Schedule to the Act, as the State Government may, by notification, specify. The rule-making power of the State Government is to be found in section 36 of the Act, which runs as follows : "36. (1) The State Government may, subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power; such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely : (a) the procedure for, and other matters (including provisions for payment of fees) incidental to, the disposal of appeals under section 27; (b) anything which may be or is required to be prescribed under this Act. (3).........." Section 37 of the Act reads as follows : "37. (3).........." Section 37 of the Act reads as follows : "37. (1) The Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Ordinance, 1972, is hereby repealed. (2) Anything done or any action taken under the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Ordinance, 1972, shall be deemed to have been validly done or taken under this Act as if this Act had commenced on the 16th day of November, 1970." 9. Section 36 of the Act is similar to section 34 of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1970. In exercise of the power conferred by section 34 of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1970, the Rules (the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Rules, 1970) were framed. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H. M. M. Ltd. v. Director of Entry Tax, West Bengal AIR 1983 SC 586 is that these Rules of 1970 have been kept alive by the provisions of section 1(3) of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Ordinance, 1972 and section 37(2) of the Act of 1972 and that it is open to the Entry Tax Officer to resort to the "best judgment" method for ascertainment of the value of the goods under rule 12(2) of the Rules provided the requirements thereof are satisfied. It is not unconstitutional for the Legislature to leave it to the executive to determine details relating to the working of taxing laws, such as, the selection of persons on whom the tax is to be levied, the rates at which it is to be charged in respect of different classes of goods and the like [Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1958] 9 STC 388 (SC); AIR 1958 SC 909 ]. The following is the view of the Supreme Court regarding delegated legislation in the decision in the case of Registrar of Co-operative Societies v. Kunjabmu AIR 1980 SC 350 at page 352. "..................... The power to legislate carries with it the power to delegate. But excessive delegation may amount to abdication. Delegation unlimited may invite despotism uninhibited. So the theory has been evolved that the Legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative function. "..................... The power to legislate carries with it the power to delegate. But excessive delegation may amount to abdication. Delegation unlimited may invite despotism uninhibited. So the theory has been evolved that the Legislature cannot delegate its essential legislative function. Legislate it must by laying down policy and principle and delegate it may to fill in detail and carry out policy. The Legislature may guide the delegate by speaking through the express provision empowering delegation on the other provision of the statute, the preamble, the scheme or even the very subject-matter of the statute. If guidance there is, wherever it may be found, the delegation is valid. A good deal of latitude has been held to be permissible in the case of taxing statutes and on the same principle a generous degree of latitude must be permissible in the case of welfare legislation, particularly those statutes which are designed to further the Directive Principles of State Policy." 10. The same view is also expressed in the case of Babu Ram Jagdish Kumar and Co. v. State of Punjab [1979] 44 STC 159 (SC) at page 164; AIR 1979 SC 1475 at page 1478. Delegations of legislative power have been upheld by the Supreme Court on several varied and diverse grounds such as the scheme and policy of the statute under which the power is delegated, the presence of guidelines in the statute regarding the exercise of delegated power, the lack of time for the Legislature to make provision with regard to all the details involved in the administration of the law, the incapacity of the Legislature to foresee all future events, the nature of the subject-matter of legislation and the nature of the donee of power, etc. Even in matters relating to taxation laws, it has been consistently held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the Legislature can delegate the power to fix rates of tax, provided there are necessary guidelines regarding such fixation, on the ground that in a modern society, taxation is one of the methods by which economic and social goals of the State can be achieved and the power to tax, therefore, should be a flexible power and capable of being easily altered to meet the exigencies of circumstances. Such delegation has been held to be not amounting to delegation of essential legislative function. Such delegation has been held to be not amounting to delegation of essential legislative function. The scheme and policy of the Act under which power has been delegated to State Government to frame the Rules and the guidelines in section 6 of the Act, enjoining the maximum rate of tax, show that the provision in rule 12(2) of the Rules for determination of the approximate saleable value of goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area for making best judgment assessment for levying entry tax does not result in the abdication of essential legislative power by the Legislature. Previous sanction of the President under the proviso to clause (b) of article 304 of the Constitution was obtained. The maximum rate of entry tax in respect of each specified goods is mentioned in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the Schedule to the Act. Column 3 of the Schedule to the Act shows that under item 37(a) of the Schedule, entry tax on wood, ballies, timber, cane and articles made thereof including furniture (but excluding wood exclusively meant for manufacture of match sticks) and sandal wood, articles made of such wood, sandal wood dust and chips is to be levied at 5 per cent ad valorem except furniture. The Legislature has, thus, provided the guideline for levy of entry tax at certain percentage of the value of the goods. The expression "ad valorem tax", has been explained as follows in Dictionary of Finance by Eitan A. Avneyon (1987 Edition) at page 19 : "'Ad valorem tax' - Tax based on an assessment value of property or of a taxable item. The tax is expressed as a percentage of that value. Usually it is an indirect tax. The term ad valorem is used with regard to most property taxes, value added taxes, excise and sales taxes. The opposite of an ad valorem tax is a specific tax which is a tax of a fixed amount irrespective of value." As ad valorem tax involves an assessment of value of the goods to be taxed and as ad valorem tax is permitted by the Schedule to the Act, it cannot be stated that entry tax on approximate saleable value of the goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area is not authorised by section 6 read with the Schedule to the Act. 11. The power to impose a tax is a legislative power. 11. The power to impose a tax is a legislative power. That power can be exercised by the Legislature directly or, subject to certain conditions, the Legislature may delegate that power to some other authority [see Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt. Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, Himachal Pradesh [1972] 29 STC 169 (SC)]. Legislature has wide latitude in the matter of selection of persons, subject-matter and events for taxation [Khandige Sham Bhat v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer [1963] 48 ITR 21 (SC); AIR 1963 SC 591 , Federation of Hotel & Restaurant Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 74 STC 102 (SC), Elel Hotels and Investment Ltd. v. Union of India [1989] 74 STC 146 (SC)]. As such, the State Legislature has authority, in exercise of its power under entry 52 of List II in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, to impose tax on the entry of goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area for consumption, use or sale therein. Rule 12(2) of the Rules for determining the approximate saleable value of goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area for making best judgment assessment for levying entry tax is within the rule making power of the State Government under section 34 of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into the Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1970 and section 37(2) of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into the Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972. The "approximate saleable value" as mentioned in rule 12(2) of the Rules is not, thus, ultra vires entry 52 of List II in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, as argued by Mr. Tapas Roy, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants. 12. The second contention of Mr. Tapas Roy, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, is that "saleable value" in rule 12(2) of the Rules will be the cost price at the time of purchase, shipping duties, insurance, excise duty and sales tax, as mentioned in rule 12(1) of the Rules and cannot be the approximate saleable value of the goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area. In other words, his contention is that saleable value will be the value of the goods at the time of entry of the goods into Calcutta metropolitan area and not the value of the goods thereafter inside the Calcutta metropolitan area. In other words, his contention is that saleable value will be the value of the goods at the time of entry of the goods into Calcutta metropolitan area and not the value of the goods thereafter inside the Calcutta metropolitan area. This contention cannot be accepted, after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H. M. M. Ltd. v. Director of Entry Tax, West Bengal AIR 1983 SC 586 . In that case there was challenge to the ascertainment of value of goods on the basis of approximate saleable value of the goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area with reference to the price list of the goods circulated by the selling agent of the applicant of that case in the Calcutta metropolitan area. On negativing the contention of the appellant in that case that the Entry Tax Officer was bound to accept the value declared by the appellant, it was decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in that case that the assessing officer was justified in resorting to ascertainment of the approximate saleable value on "best judgment" basis as provided for in rule 12(2) of the Rules on the basis of the value of the goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area. Mr. Tapas Roy, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, has submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H. M. M. Ltd. v. Director of Entry Tax, West Bengal AIR 1983 SC 586 was not a decision on the proposition as to whether entry tax would be calculated on the value of the goods at the point of entry or on the sale value in the Calcutta market in retail after its entry. According to him, that decision was with regard to the value of 8,736 kgs. of Horlicks powder sent in 18 steel drums. The appellant's contention in that case was that the value as per stock transfer invoice was Rs. 5.9891 per kg. and the delivery cost including freight and insurance was Rs. 7.694 per kg. at Calcutta and that G.P-1. was irrelevant for the purpose of assessment of entry tax. According to Mr. Roy, as the original document in support of this claim of the appellants was not produced before the Entry Tax Officer, the Entry Tax Officer resorted to "best judgment assessment". Mr. 7.694 per kg. at Calcutta and that G.P-1. was irrelevant for the purpose of assessment of entry tax. According to Mr. Roy, as the original document in support of this claim of the appellants was not produced before the Entry Tax Officer, the Entry Tax Officer resorted to "best judgment assessment". Mr. Tapas Roy has contended that even that saleable value was the wholesale price and not the retail price and that reasonable opportunity of being heard was given to the appellants in that case before ascertainment of the saleable value of the goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area. In short, Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, has contended that the present case is to be distinguished from the case of H. M. M. Ltd. v. Director of Entry Tax, West Bengal AIR 1983 SC 586 as in that case the appellants had not declared the cost price and other items as mentioned in rule 12(1) of the Rules. On a scrutiny of the decision in the case of H. M. M. Ltd. AIR 1983 SC 568 it cannot be stated that on the basis of the aforesaid distinguishing facts in that case, the decision in the aces of H. M. M. Ltd. AIR 1983 SC 586 is not an authority for the proposition that entry tax could be calculated on the sale value of the goods in the Calcutta market after entry of the goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area. It is no doubt true that the entry tax was assessed in that case with reference to the price list of the goods circulated by the appellant's selling agent, after affording an opportunity to the appellants of being heard regarding the approximate saleable value of the goods, on the basis of a direction of the High Court, Calcutta, for making fresh assessment of entry tax after giving an opportunity to the appellants being heard. I will be presently dealing with the question of following the principles of natural justice in making best judgment assessment under rule 12(2) of the Rules. I will be presently dealing with the question of following the principles of natural justice in making best judgment assessment under rule 12(2) of the Rules. A perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H. M. M. Ltd. AIR 1983 SC 586 , however, shows that if the principles of natural justice, before making best judgment assessment of approximate saleable value under rule 12(2) of the Rules, are followed, there can be assessment of entry tax on the basis of the approximate saleable value of the goods inside the Calcutta metropolitan area and not merely the value of the goods at the time of entry of the goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area. 13. Mr. Tapas Roy, learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, has drawn our attention to the case of Shroff and Company v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay [1989] 72 STC 150 (SC); (1989) Supp 1 SCC 347 and has contended that approximate saleable value for levying entry tax should be the value at the point of entry of the goods into the Calcutta metropolitan area and not the value of the goods thereafter after entry of the goods inside Calcutta metropolitan area. This contention cannot be accepted. The case of Shroff and Company [1989] 72 STC 150 (SC); (1989) Supp 1 SCC 347 related to the question as to whether countervailing duty under entry 51 of List II in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution was includible in the octroi levied under section 192(1) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, read with section 128 of that Act and rule 2(7)(a) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation (Levy of Octroi) Rules, 1965, as it stood prior to July 28, 1976, during the period from July 28, 1976 to June 28, 1983 and thereafter from June 28, 1983 onwards. Countervailing duty was clearly contained in rule 2(7)(a) of those Octroi Rules prior to June 28, 1983 by enjoining that the "value of the articles" where the octroi was charged ad valorem should mean the value of the articles made up of the cost price of the articles, as ascertained from the original invoice, plus shipping duties, insurance, customs duties, excise duties, sales tax, vend fees, freight charges, carrier charges and all other incidental charges except the octroi incurred by the importer, till the articles arrive at (prior to July 28, 1976), or are removed from (from July 28, 1976 to June 27, 1983) the place of import. On construing the provisions in rule 2(7)(a) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation (Levy of Octroi) Rules, 1965, as amended from time to time, it was held by the Supreme Court in that case that countervailing duty was includible in the octroi, which was a tax on the entry of goods into the local area (for consumption use or sale therein) under entry 52 of List II in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. In the case of Shroff and Company [1989] 72 STC 150 (SC); (1989) Supp 1 SCC 347 value of goods at the time of entry was only relevant for the purpose of calculation of octroi. In rule 2(7)(a) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation (Levy of Octroi) Rules, 1965, as it read before July 28, 1976, value of articles, where octroi was charged ad valorem, was to mean the value of the article made up of several items mentioned in that rule "till the arrival of the article at the place of import". In that rule with effect from July 28, 1976 the value of articles meant value made up of several items mentioned in that rule "till the articles are removed from the place of import". That rule, as amended since July 28, 1983, gave the meaning of value of articles, where octroi was charged ad valorem, as consisting of several items mentioned in that rule, "till the articles are removed from the place of import". The word "import" under rule 2(2) of those Rules meant conveying of any article liable to octroi into Greater Bombay from any other area outside Greater Bombay. The word "import" under rule 2(2) of those Rules meant conveying of any article liable to octroi into Greater Bombay from any other area outside Greater Bombay. As rule 2(7)(a) of the Rules in Bombay expressly mentioned that the value of articles meant value, composed of several items, up to the point of entry of those articles into Greater Bombay, the value at the entry was only relevant for the purpose of calculation of octroi and not its appreciation or depreciation thereafter. In the Rules there is no such definition of the "value of the articles". In rule 12(1) of the Rules, the dealer has been asked to declare the value in a declaration in form IV and such value shall include (a) the cost price of such goods as given in the bill or invoice or consignment note issued by the consignor or document of like nature; (b) shipping duties; (c) insurance; (d) excise duty; and (e) sales tax. The valuation shown in the bill or invoice or consignment note issued by the consignor may be under-valuation. It is in the context of such under-valuation of the cost price of goods in the bill or invoice or consignment note that provision has been made in rule 12(2) of the Rules about the satisfaction of the assessing officer about the reasonableness of the value quoted in the document submitted on behalf of the dealer. If the assessing officer is satisfied about the reasonableness of such value, he shall accept the same and levy tax accordingly. If he is not satisfied about the reasonableness of the value shown or declared by the dealer, he is to determine the approximate saleable value of the goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area to the best of his judgment and to levy tax accordingly. The Bombay Rule is, thus, different from the Rules and on the basis of the Bombay Rule, it cannot be stated that value of goods at the time of entry is only relevant for the purpose of calculation of entry tax. 14. The next contention of Mr. Tapas Rao, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, is that rule 12(2) of the Rules is a bar to inter-State trade and is ultra vires article 301 of the Constitution. This contention cannot be accepted. 14. The next contention of Mr. Tapas Rao, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, is that rule 12(2) of the Rules is a bar to inter-State trade and is ultra vires article 301 of the Constitution. This contention cannot be accepted. It has been held by the Calcutta High Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Nitai Mohan Saha [1989] 74 STC 221 that where the alleged interference with the freedom of trade is not direct, particularly in the case of taxation, article 301 of the Constitution is not attracted. The Act is also protected by article 304(b) of the Constitution. 15. Mr. Tapas Roy, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, has next contended that fixation of saleable value rule 12(2) of the Rules will be violative of article 14 of the Constitution as such fixation of saleable value will be arbitrary in the absence of any provision in the Act about any saleable value. This contention cannot be accepted. Entry tax is to be levied ad valorem as per Schedule of the Act read with section 6 of the Act, and the determination of saleable value cannot be beyond the jurisdiction of the assessing officer. It is no doubt true that article 14 hits against any arbitrary State action. An act which is arbitrary cannot but be unequal. The determination of saleable value under rule 12(2) of the Rules is not, however, arbitrary, as such determination is justified under the provisions of the Act and hence there is no question of rule 12(2) of the Rules being hit by article 14 of the Constitution. 16. The next contention of Mr. Tapas Roy, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, relates to the necessity of observance of the principles of natural justice in assessing saleable value under rule 12(2) of the Rules. 16. The next contention of Mr. Tapas Roy, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, relates to the necessity of observance of the principles of natural justice in assessing saleable value under rule 12(2) of the Rules. He has made references, in this connection, to the cases of K. I. Shephard v. Union of India AIR 1988 SC 686 , Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1480 , State of Kerala v. K. T. Shaduli Yusuff [1977] 39 STC 478 (SC); AIR 1977 SC 1627 , Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner AIR 1978 SC 851 , S. Govindaraju v. K.S.R.T.C. AIR 1986 SC 1680 , S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan AIR 1981 SC 136 , Ashok Kumar v. Union of India AIR 1991 SC 1792 and C. B. Gautam v. Union of India JT 1992 (6) SC 678. It is not necessary to discuss in detail each of these cases. The horizons of the right of hearing, whether as a part of natural justice or of fairness, have been expanding since the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269 wherein the supposed distinction existing previously between quasi-judicial and administrative decisions was perceptively mitigated. This distinction was rubbed out to a vanishing point in the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150 . Since then, the concept of natural justice has made great strides in the realm of administrative law. It is not necessary to discuss the applicability of the principles of natural justice in the realm of administrative law, as made out in the various decisions referred to by Mr. Roy, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants. In the present case, we are concerned not with administrative decision but with quasi-judicial decision, wherein the principles of natural justice had its sway even before the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269 . Roy, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants. In the present case, we are concerned not with administrative decision but with quasi-judicial decision, wherein the principles of natural justice had its sway even before the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dr. Binapani Dei AIR 1967 SC 1269 . It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. K. T. Shaduli Yusuff [1977] 39 STC 478; AIR 1977 SC 1627 , that tax authorities entrusted with the power to make assessment of tax discharge quasi-judicial functions and that they are bound to observe principles of natural justice in reaching their conclusions. The principles of natural justice are, thus, to be observed by the assessing authority while determining approximate saleable value of goods under rule 12(2) of the Rules for levying entry tax. The rules of natural justice are not constant. They are not absolute and rigid rules having universal application. One of the rules which constitutes a part of the principles of natural justice is the rule of audi alteram partem which requires that no man should be condemned unheard. The case of the respondents is that as there was colossal loss of revenue on account of under-valuation of the timber by the importing dealer in the value disclosed by him in the declaration in form IV, the department thought is advisable to post the assessing authority with the latest market valuation of specified goods by supplying them with periodically revised market bulletins about valuation after making survey of the market value as regards the retail sale value of the specified goods. The Revenue wants us to accept as proper the determination of approximate saleable value by the assessing authorities on the basis of such market information bulletins issued by the department from time to time on the ground that there is provision in the Act for filing of appeal and of revision against such assessment on determination of saleable value by the assessing authority. The post-decisional hearing after best judgment assessment on determination of saleable value under rule 12(2) of the Rules and levy of taxes on the basis of such assessment, by preferring appeal or revision, has several disadvantages as compared with the pre-decisional hearing. Subsequent hearing is not a substitute for prior hearing. The post-decisional hearing after best judgment assessment on determination of saleable value under rule 12(2) of the Rules and levy of taxes on the basis of such assessment, by preferring appeal or revision, has several disadvantages as compared with the pre-decisional hearing. Subsequent hearing is not a substitute for prior hearing. It can be resorted to where no hearing would have been otherwise available or where hearing should be excluded for taking prompt action. Urgency is, however, a matter of degree. Where urgency is not so extreme, as in the case of determination of saleable value under rule 12(2) of the Rules (except in the case of perishable goods, if any and if specified in the Schedule of the Act), the question is of adjusting and harmonising the need for speed and the obligation to act fairly. In other words, there should be an adjustment by striking a balance between the competing claims of hurry and hearing. It will depend on the facts of each case as to up to what extent the right of hearing should be cut short in reasonable proportion to the exigency of the situation. The dealer should, however, be given the right of hearing before determination of saleable value under rule 12(2) of the Rules and in the ultimate analysis the question as to to what extent and in what measure the right of hearing should be given at the pre-decisional stage will depend on the degree of urgency. The dealer should, however, be given the right of hearing before determination of saleable value under rule 12(2) of the Rules and in the ultimate analysis the question as to to what extent and in what measure the right of hearing should be given at the pre-decisional stage will depend on the degree of urgency. As such, I feel the necessity of giving a reasonable opportunity to the dealer of being heard before determination of the approximate saleable value under rule 12(2) of the Rules by passing a reasoned order, without giving a direction, in the manner prayed for by the applicants, that in each of the cases a notice should be issued to the consignor or consignee or the nominated dealer of the goods recording reasons for non-satisfaction about the reasonableness of the value of the goods in question shown or declared by such consignor or consignee or dealer and thereupon giving an opportunity to the consignor or consignee or the dealer to make a representation in writing against such reasons if he does not agree with the reasons and disposing of the dispute with regard to the value of the goods on giving a personal hearing to the consignor, consignee or dealer, as the case may be and thereafter passing a reasoned order in case of non-acceptance of the value of the goods shown or declared by the dealer or consignor or consignee, as the case may be. The applicants are, thus entitled to get the alternative declaration for complying with the principles of natural justice before determining approximate saleable value of goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area under rule 12(2) of the Rules. 17. Before concluding, I am to state that on the last date of hearing Mr. Tapas Roy, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicants, drew our attention to sections 17 and 20 of the Act and contended that when there were provisions in sections 17 and 20 of the Act for short-levied tax or advance deposit of tax, taxes should be assessed on taking into consideration the items mentioned in rule 12(1) of the Rules and thereafter, in case the assessed tax was short-levied, action should be taken under section 17 of the Act for recovery of the short-levied tax. This contention cannot be accepted. This contention cannot be accepted. Section 17 of the Act relates to short-levy of tax through inadvertence, error or misconstruction on the part of the prescribed authority or through mis-statement of the dealer as to the quantity or description or value of the goods or for any other reason. Assessment of tax under rule 12(2) is made only when the assessing authority is not satisfied about the reasonableness of the value shown in the declaration in form IV. There is, thus, no question of assessment through inadvertence, error or misconstruction on the part of the prescribed authority. It is because of the mis-statement of the dealer as to the value of the goods in form IV that the determination of saleable value is made under rule 12(2) of the Rules. If there is mis-statement by the dealer about the quantity or description of the goods, rule 16(5) of the Rules authorises the assessing officer to dispose of that matter after scrutiny, enquiry, verification, inspection or examination of the goods including its weighment and after due consideration of the submissions or objections as the dealer or his agent may make in this regard. The provisions detailing the circumstances for which short-levied tax can be recovered under the provisions of section 17 of the Act do not, thus, apply to determination of saleable value under rule 12(2) of the Rules. Moreover, an argument advanced before the Supreme Court in the case of H. M. M. Ltd. v. Director of Entry Tax, West Bengal AIR 1983 SC 586 at page 588, for accepting the value shown by the dealer in form IV unless and until the procedure prescribed in terms of section 17 of the Act was adopted and the mis-statement, if any, in the declared value was satisfactorily explained did not find favour with the Honourable Supreme Court. In the circumstances, the contention that the tax assessed on the basis of the provisions in rule 12(1) the Rules should be accepted till resort is made to the provisions of section 17 of the Act cannot be accepted. 18. In the result, the application is allowed in part. In the circumstances, the contention that the tax assessed on the basis of the provisions in rule 12(1) the Rules should be accepted till resort is made to the provisions of section 17 of the Act cannot be accepted. 18. In the result, the application is allowed in part. It is hereby declared that the respondents will have to assess and levy entry tax on entry of wood and timber produce into the Calcutta metropolitan area by passing an order with reasons after observing the principles of natural justice and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerned dealer. The question as to what extent and in what measure the audi alteram partem rule (hear the other side) will apply at the pre-decisional stage will depend upon the degree of urgency of each case. There will be, however, no declaration that sections 6, 11, 14 and 15 of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Act, 1972 and rule 12(2) of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Rules, 1970 are bad, illegal, void and ultra vires articles 14, 19, 21 and 304(b) of the Constitution of India. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. S. N. MUKHERJEE (Judicial Member). - We agree with the Honourable Chairman's conclusions about the validity of rule 12(2) of the Rules and about the necessity of granting an opportunity of hearing to the dealer and of passing a reasoned order by the assessing officer while making a best judgment assessment of approximate saleable value under rule 12(2) of the Rules. We would, however, like to add a few words by way of elaboration of our views on the contents of saleable value and right of hearing of the dealer under rule 12(2) of the Rules. Since the facts and the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules have been already noted by the Honourable Chairman, we would avoid repetition of the same. 20. Since the facts and the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules have been already noted by the Honourable Chairman, we would avoid repetition of the same. 20. The challange against rule 12(2) of the Rules mainly rests on three grounds, viz., the Rule in so far as it permits determination of the approximate saleable value of goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area for the purposes of best judgment assessment is beyond the scope of section 6 of the Act; secondly, it authorises the assessing authority to determine saleable value arbitrarily and, lastly, the rule is violative of principles of natural justice. The contention of Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing for the applicants, is that the value for the purposes of assessment of entry tax on the goods must be the value at the point of entry and not the value of the goods after those have entered into the Calcutta metropolitan area. According to the respondent's learned advocate, Mr. Bose, the controversy regarding the validity of the best judgment assessment by determining the saleable value in the Calcutta metropolitan area has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of H. M. M. Ltd. v. Director of Entry Tax AIR 1983 SC 586 , already referred and discussed by the Honourable Chairman. 21. We would like to note that section 6 of the Act refers to the Schedule to the Act. In the said Schedule, various goods have been specified and various rates of tax have been indicated. Most of the rates are on the basis of ad valorem though some are on the basis of measurement by quantity and some by length as well. Mr. Roy's contention is that "saleable value" does not find place in section 6 and as such the reference to saleable value in rule 12(2) is beyond the limits of the statute. We cannot agree to Mr. Roy's contention. The rate of tax in the Schedule has a positive relation with the value of the goods as the rate is related to "ad valorem". According to Concise Oxford Dictionary, ad valorem means (of taxes) in proportion to the estimated value of goods. "Cost price" of a commodity and "value" of the said commodity are not identical expressions. Value of a commodity is generally higher than its cost price. According to Concise Oxford Dictionary, ad valorem means (of taxes) in proportion to the estimated value of goods. "Cost price" of a commodity and "value" of the said commodity are not identical expressions. Value of a commodity is generally higher than its cost price. The rate of tax prescribed in the Schedule cannot be related to the cost price of the goods since it has been related to the value of the goods. Mr. Roy's contention is that if the value of the goods is taken to be the saleable value after the goods have entered into the Calcutta metropolitan area, then it would be ultra vires section 6 of the Act and entry 52 in the List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. There may be some force in Mr. Roy's contention that the Supreme Court decision in H. M. M. Ltd. v. Director of Entry Tax AIR 1983 SC 586 is not a decision directly on the question whether entry tax would be calculated on the value of the goods at the point of entry or on the saleable value in the Calcutta market in retail after its entry. But this is not to suggest that rule 12(2) can be successfully impeached as ultra vires section 6 of the Act and entry 52 in List II of the Seventh Schedule read with article 246 of the Constitution as the best judgment determination under rule 12(2) has been approved by the Supreme Court in the same case. 22. The subject-matter of rule 12 is determination of value and it is contained in two parts. In the first part, i.e., in rule 12(1) it provides for elements to be included in determining value of goods for the purposes of declaration by every dealer. In the second part, i.e., in rule 12(2), it provides for levying of tax by the assessing officer in the following situations, namely : (i) when he is satisfied about the reasonableness of the value quoted by the dealer; (ii) when the value is not ascertainable on account of non-availability or non-production of the bill or invoice or consignment note issued by the consignor or other documents of like nature or other documents showing other charges, duties and fees; and (iii) when he is not satisfied about the reasonableness of the value shown or declared by the dealer. In the last two situations noted above, the assessing officer has been authorised to determine the approximate saleable value of such goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area to the best of his judgment and to levy tax accordingly. The recourse to best judgment assessment can be taken by the assessing officer when he does not levy tax straightway as in the first situation on being satisfied about the reasonableness of the value quoted in the document submitted by or on behalf of the dealer. 23. The rule, to our mind, requires determination of the "approximate" sealable value in the Calcutta metropolitan area of those goods which are being brought there. The rule does not speak of either the wholesale market price or the retail market price. The wholesale market price or the retail market price of wood and timber in Calcutta is likely to include an element of entry tax as well as other charges which may not be negligible. In determining the approximate saleable value of the goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area to the best of his judgment, the assessing officer is not empowered by the rule to base his determination on the exact market price prevailing in Calcutta. His determination of the saleable value is qualified by the expression "approximate". The determination of the saleable value of goods is further qualified by the adjective "such" before the word "goods". The goods, particularly wood and timber, after crossing the entry point are likely to undergo various changes in their form, shape and size. Under the rule, the assessing officer is not empowered to base his determination on the approximate saleable value of such physically altered goods. It would be, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the approximate determination of the saleable value of the goods is required to be made at the point of entry before such goods have undergone any substantial physical alteration or the saleable value has gone up as a result of physical alteration in the form, shape or size or due to addition of the entry tax itself. The rule providing for best judgment determination of saleable value cannot suffer from invalidity on the ground that section 6 of the Act does not contemplate such determination since in our view it does. The rule providing for best judgment determination of saleable value cannot suffer from invalidity on the ground that section 6 of the Act does not contemplate such determination since in our view it does. We have noted above that the rate of entry tax given in the Schedule to the Act is related to the valuation of the goods. Rule 12(2) provides for a method for arriving at the approximate valuation by the assessing officer. Such a method cannot be seen to be beyond the limits of entry 52 in List II of the Seventh Schedule read with article 246 of the Constitution. 24. With regard to the challenge of the rule being arbitrary or the same being violative of the principles of natural justice, we would only like to note that rule 12(2), as it stands, does not suffer from either of the two ills. Though right of hearing has not been specifically provided in rule 12(2), such a right has been clearly provided in rule 16(4) where the assessing officer is required to make an assessment of the tax after scrutiny, enquiry, verification, inspection or examination and after due consideration of such submissions or objections as the dealer or his agent may make in this regard. Rule 16 prescribes the procedure for assessment of tax payable in the case of import by road. A due consideration of submissions or objections of the dealer or his agent is a necessary requirement before assessing entry tax when the goods are brought by road or by rail or by sea-going vessels or by air or by any other means. This would be apparent from rules 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. There is no reason why rule 12(2) should be delinked from rules 16 to 20. Since the assessing officer is required to determine an approximate saleable value when he is not satisfied about the reasonableness of the value shown or declared by the dealer or his agent in a quasi-judicial manner, he shall be required to observe a most important principle of natural justice, viz., an opportunity of hearing the dealer. To what extent the right of hearing should be given would depend upon the facts, circumstances and exigencies of each case. To what extent the right of hearing should be given would depend upon the facts, circumstances and exigencies of each case. The right of hearing of the dealer is implicit in the act of determining the approximate saleable value when the assessing officer is not satisfied about the reasonableness of the value shown or declared by the dealer. The term "dealer" is defined in the Act. Mr. Roy, the learned advocate for the applicant has contended that right of hearing should be given to the consignor or consignee only. We are unable to accept his contention as this would directly interfere with the definition and restrict the meaning of dealer given in the Act. In determining the value in a quasi-judicial manner, the determination order should be necessarily a reasoned order. A reasoned order is very much necessary for the aggrieved party if he wants to prefer an appeal. An aggrieved party cannot challenge an assessment order which is not a speaking order or which is not a reasoned order. With an opportunity of hearing and requirement of a reasoned order for determination of the saleable value of wood and timber, the challenge to the rule as being arbitrary or as being violative of the principles of natural justice would appear to be without merit and force. 25. We would, therefore, dispose of the application with the direction that the assessing officer, when not satisfied about the reasonableness of the value of wood and timber shown or declared by the dealer, shall determine with reasons the approximate saleable value of such goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area to the best of his judgment in the light of our observations above and in making such determination, he shall give the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard. P. R. BALASUBRAMANIAN (Technical Member). - I agree. ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS PER MAJORITY VIEW 26. P. R. BALASUBRAMANIAN (Technical Member). - I agree. ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS PER MAJORITY VIEW 26. The application is allowed in part in the manner as under : When acting under rule 12(2) of the Taxes on Entry of Goods into Calcutta Metropolitan Area Rules, 1970, if the assessing officer is not satisfied about the reasonableness of the value of wood and timber shown or declared by the dealer, he shall determine with reasons the approximate saleable value of such goods in the Calcutta metropolitan area to the best of his judgment, in the light of our observations made above, and in making such determination he shall give the dealer a reasonable opportunity of being heard and shall levy tax accordingly. All other prayers are rejected. No cost is allowed in the circumstances of the case. Application partly allowed.