9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 262X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xes specified therein. For various reasons that are not necessary to notice the petitioner did not pay the taxes due from it on or before the dates specified in the respective demand notices and then ultimately on 2nd April, 1977, it paid all the taxes due for the aforesaid years. For such delay in payment of taxes, the C.T.O. called upon the petitioner to remit penalty or interest due to the State under section 13(2)(ii) of the Act. 3.. On 2nd April, 1977, the petitioner made an application (exhibit C) before the Government under section 13(2A) of the Act, praying for waiver of penalty of a sum of Rs. 25,059.92 that had become due then. On 15th/19th June, 1978 (exhibit F), Government has rejected this application. In this petition under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s without a genuine application of its mind, arbitrary and illegal. In support of his contention Sri Sridhar strongly relies on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Limited v. Union of India AIR 1976 SC 1785 and a Division Bench ruling of this Court in S. Sannaiah v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Mysore [1974] 95 ITR 435. 9.. Sri Rajendra Babu, in refuting this contention of Sri Sridhar, contends that the order made by Government under section 13(2A) of the Act, was not reviewable by this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. In support of this contention, Sri Rajendra Babu strongly relies on the ruling of the Supreme Court in G. Krishna Goud J. Bhoomiah v. State of Andhra Prades ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty due from your concern cannot be conceded." The only merit of this order is its extreme brevity and nothing else. From this order, it is crystal-clear that the Government had not genuinely applied its mind to the case pleaded by the petitioner in its application. An order that is subject to judicial review must on the face of it disclose that it has been made on the application of mind and for purpose of the Act. On an examination of all the facts and circumstances it is undoubtedly open to Government to accept or reject them also. But that should be apparent from the order itself failing which this Court is not handicapped in exercising its power under article 226 of the Constitution. 13. In the Siemens Engineering case AIR 1976 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for rejecting the request of the petitioner for waiving penalty. But, I see no obligation on the Government to give any such reason. Section 13(2A) does not contemplate an order adjudicating the civil rights of any party and, therefore, the order to be made thereunder need not be a speaking order." With great respect to his Lordship, we are of the view that this enunciation is not in accord with the enunciation made by the Supreme Court in the Siemens Engineering case AIR 1976 SC 1785 reiterated in all the latter cases. Even otherwise, we are of the view that this enunciation made by his Lordship with great respect, is too wide and is not sound. With great respect to his Lordship we regret our inability to subscribe to these views and ove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
