9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d:- 10-7-2008 - ARIJIT PASAYAT DR. AND SATHASIVAM P. JJ. G.E. Vahanvati, S.G., Parag P. Tripathi, A.S.G., Altaf II. Naiyak, A.G., Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.A.G., Ranjit Kumar, Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocates, [Ms. S. Borthakur, Sunill Kumar Jain, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Gopal Singh, Anukul Raj, Ms. Sweta Singh, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Pinky, Ms. Jesal, R. Sathish, Bharat Swaroop Sharma, Vijay Kumar Pandita, Dayan Krishnan, Ms. Neelam Sharma, T.C. Sharma, Mrs. Neera Gupta, Ms. Asha G. Nair, Ms. Vismai Rao, D.S. Mahra, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotie, Prabu Ramasubramaniam, Vikrant Singh Bais, B.S. Banthia, Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, David Rao, Tarun Jamwal, S. Biswajit Meitei, Vijay Prakash, Sanjay R. Hegde, Amit Kr. Chawla, Arun Varma, Vikr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount produced, an extra demand of Rs. 19,25,41,763 was raised. The appellant-company had disclosed net sale and transfer of goods during the year under assessment in question as follows: 1. Sales under section 8(1)(a)(b) Rs. 714,18,82,639.06 2. Sales under section 8(2)(b) Rs. 10,37,23,857.45 3. Export sales Rs. 10,95,977.00 4. Branch/stock transfer Rs. 1130,24,48,338.61 Total The assessing officer found that certain declaration forms in form "C" were not produced and, therefore, the differential tax was to be levied. Rs. 1854,91,50,812.12 With reference to clause (a) of section 3, it was held that the sales made under the Annual M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved." A few days thereafter, on April 19, 2006, the Assistant Commissioner disposed of the appeal filed dismissing the same and confirming the order of assessment. A second appeal was filed before the Orissa Sales Tax Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal"). An application for stay was also filed. By order dated August 14, 2006, the Commissioner directed deposit of Rs. 15 crores. The said order was challenged before the High Court and, as noted above, by the impugned order, the High Court disposed of the said petition without expressing any opinion on merits but observing that the matter was under examination by this court. Though various points were urged in respect of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ired Judge of the Supreme Court, or a retired Chief Justice of a High Court; (b) an officer of the Indian Legal Service who is, or is qualified to be, an Additional Secretary to the Government of India; and (c) an officer of a State Government not below the rank of Secretary or an officer of the Central Government not below the rank of Additional Secretary, who is an expert in sales tax matters. (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the Chairman or a Member holding a post as such in the authority for Advance Rulings appointed under clause (a) or clause (c), as the case may be, of sub-section (2) of section 245-O of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) may, in addition to his being the Chairman or a Member of tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paragraph 3, starting from pages 39 to 41, different stands of the appellant have been noted. In paragraph 4, the conclusions of the first appellate authority are noted. They read as follows: "I have carefully gone through the impugned order of assessment, averments of the learned Advocate and the materials available on record. On the first point of dispute regarding the claim of the appellant towards refund of tax of Rs. 14,59,122.52 collected from the bidders, before this forum also the appellant failed to adduce any evidences regarding refund of tax to such bidders from whom tax was collected. In absence of such documentary evidences, the claim of the appellant is not credible. The second point of dispute regarding levy of tax on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts to denial of justice". "Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
