1978 (6) TMI 165 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy.
2. Requirement for the revising authority to provide reasons for rejecting the waiver application.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petition:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, arguing that the petitioner had an alternative remedy by filing a reference application. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, specifically sections 10 and 11 of the Sales Tax Act, both before and after their amendment. The court noted that while section 11 provides for a reference against orders passed under section 10, the significant question was whether this included interlocutory orders such as those related to stay or waiver applications.

The court referred to multiple precedents under the Income-tax Act, which held that references do not lie against interlocutory orders but only against final orders that decide the substantive rights of the parties. Applying this principle, the court concluded that an order passed by the revising authority on a stay or waiver application is interlocutory and does not dispose of the revision. Therefore, no reference under section 11(1) lies in respect of such an order, and the preliminary objection raised by the State was dismissed.

2. Requirement for Reasons in the Order:
The petitioner challenged the order of the additional revising authority on the ground that it did not provide reasons for rejecting the waiver application. The court emphasized that the revising authority performs judicial functions and its orders are subject to scrutiny under articles 136 and 226 of the Constitution. Thus, the orders must be speaking orders, supported by reasons to ensure they are not arbitrary.

The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Travancore Rayons Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that the absence of reasons vitiates the conclusions of a judicial authority. The court rejected the standing counsel's argument that reasons are necessary only when the application is allowed, stating that the necessity for giving reasons is inherent in judicial functions. The court concluded that even for rejecting a stay or waiver application, the revising authority must provide appropriate reasons.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order for lack of reasons. It directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a month of receiving the order. The stay order was discharged, and no order as to costs was made. This judgment also governed several other writ petitions listed in the order.

Petition allowed.