1978 (5) TMI 38 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal and revision - Stay applications - Whether speaking orders necessary - Refusal to grant stay

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of order for lack of reasons given by the Revising Authority for rejecting the applications.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer, submitted a return of turnover which was rejected and enhanced by the Sales Tax Officer. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a stay application before the Additional Revising Authority under Section 10(4) of the Act, seeking waiver of one third of the disputed tax. The Additional Revising Authority rejected the application without providing reasons. The petitioner challenged this order on the grounds of lack of reasons given by the Revising Authority for rejecting the applications.

The High Court analyzed the necessity for reasons in judicial orders, emphasizing that a speaking order with supported reasons is essential to ensure decisions are in accordance with the law. The Court referenced various legal precedents highlighting the significance of reasons in judicial orders to maintain transparency and accountability. It was noted that absence of reasons can vitiate the conclusions of a judicial authority, as seen in previous cases where orders were struck down due to lack of disclosed reasons.

The Court rejected the argument that reasons are only necessary when the application is allowed, stating that reasons are essential for both accepting and rejecting applications. The Court emphasized that while detailed reasons may not be required for refusing stay or waiver applications, some reasons must be provided to support the conclusion reached for rejecting the application. The Court also clarified that discretionary orders are amenable to interference under Article 226 of the Constitution if a case for interference is made out, regardless of the discretion involved.

Ultimately, the High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within a month. The stay order was discharged, and no costs were awarded. The Court's decision aimed to uphold the importance of providing reasons in judicial orders to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to legal principles.