2013 (4) TMI 379 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Entry Tax on purchase of plant and machinery acquired - execution of work contract during the period 01.04.1987 to 31.03.1988 - petitioner contention that the revisional order passed is a non-speaking order and is liable to be quashed - Held that - Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the minds of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Right of reason is an indispensable part of the sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. See Steel Authority of India Limited v Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela Circle and others (2008 (7) TMI 551 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Also said in Assistant Commissioner Commercial Tax Department v Shukla and Brothers (2010 (4) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities, firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly hamper the proper administration of justice - Thus remit the matter in the present case to reivisional authority to pass a fresh reasoned order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to imposition of Entry Tax on purchase of plant and machinery for work contract during 01.04.1987 to 31.03.1988. Validity of revisional order dated 30.05.2000.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the imposition of Entry Tax on the purchase of plant and machinery for a work contract during a specific period. The order dated 31.10.1998 by the third respondent and the order dated 30.05.2000 by the second respondent affirming the same were under scrutiny. The petitioner contended that the revisional order of 30.05.2000 was non-speaking and should be quashed on this ground alone. It was argued that the grounds raised in the revision petition and written submissions were not considered, and the revision merely affirmed the third respondent's order.

Upon examination, it was found that the revisional authority had not provided a speaking order while deciding the petitioner's revision petition. The grounds raised by the petitioner were not addressed in the absence of reasons in the revisional order, rendering it unsustainable. The court emphasized the importance of providing reasons in judicial decisions, stating that failure to do so amounts to a denial of justice. Reasons serve as a link between the decision-maker's mind and the conclusion reached, ensuring objectivity and transparency in the decision-making process. Citing various legal precedents, the court highlighted that the right to reasons is essential for a fair judicial system and is a fundamental aspect of natural justice.

In light of the established legal principles regarding the necessity of providing reasons in decisions, the court set aside the order dated 30.05.2000 and directed the second respondent to reconsider the matter and issue a fresh reasoned order after granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The judgment concluded by disposing of the petition with the mentioned directions and specified that no costs were awarded in the matter.