2010 (4) TMI 139 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Reasoned Order - one line order of a High Court - Works Contract under VAT / Sales Tax - Manufacturing - The contention that the respondent had not manufactured the shutters from the tax paid raw material and also that the contract in question was not impartible but a consequential item for completion of the contract required examination by the High Court - it is true that requirement of stating reasons for judicial orders necessarily does not mean a very detailed or lengthy order, but there should be some reasoning recorded by the Court for declining or granting relief to the petitioner - the purpose, is to make the litigant aware of the reasons for which the relief is declined as well as to help the higher Court in assessing the correctness of the view taken by the High Court while disposing off a matter. May be, while dealing with the matter at the admission stage even recording of short listening dealing with the merit of the contentions raised before the High Court may suffice, in contrast, a detailed judgment while matter is being disposed off after final hearing, but in both events, in our view, it is imperative for the High Court to record its own reasoning however short it might be. - recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice - case remitted to High Court

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing
2. Lack of recorded reasons for dismissal by the High Court
3. Taxability of iron rolling shutters and doors
4. Requirement of reasoned judgments in judicial orders

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing:
The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and granted leave to hear the case under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

2. Lack of Recorded Reasons for Dismissal by the High Court:
The appellant argued that the High Court dismissed the revision petition without recording any reasons, causing serious prejudice. The Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of reasoned orders, stating that the High Court should have provided reasons for rejecting the revision petition. The Court underscored that reasons are essential for ensuring transparency, fairness, and enabling higher courts to review decisions effectively.

3. Taxability of Iron Rolling Shutters and Doors:
The respondent was a contractor for constructing shops and had received payments for the same. The assessing authority levied tax, interest, penalty, and surcharge on the respondent, asserting that the shutters and doors were not manufactured from tax-paid raw material. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Rajasthan Tax Board accepted the respondent's plea that the shutters and doors were part of an impartible work contract and thus not taxable. The High Court dismissed the Department's revision petition without addressing the questions of law raised, including the taxability of the shutters and doors.

4. Requirement of Reasoned Judgments in Judicial Orders:
The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of reasoned judgments, citing several precedents and principles of natural justice. It stated that reasons are the "soul of orders" and essential for transparency, fairness, and enabling effective appellate review. The Court highlighted that non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities: prejudice to the affected party and hampering proper administration of justice.

The Supreme Court cited several cases to support its stance, including:
- S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, emphasizing the importance of clarity in administrative decisions.
- Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. Union of India, stating that administrative authorities must provide clear and explicit reasons in support of their orders.
- State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, asserting that reasons are indispensable for a sound judicial system.

The Court concluded that the High Court's cryptic dismissal of the revision petition without recorded reasons was impermissible and prejudicial to the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 29th February 2008 and remitted the case to the High Court for de novo hearing and passing of an appropriate order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed to the extent of remitting the case, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →