9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as being brought to Bathinda was checked at the Sales Tax Check Barrier, Doomanwali. The officer in-charge of the barrier detained the goods on the ground that the driver of the vehicle could not produce complete documents. He initiated action under section 14-B and imposed penalty amounting to Rs. 1,50,000 under section 14-B(7) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, before whom the petitioner filed appeal under section 20(1) of the Act, affirmed the order passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer. The Sales Tax Tribunal upheld the orders passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer as well as the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner when it dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner. 3.. The petitioner has challenged the imposition of penalty under section 14-B(7) on the ground that the Excise and Taxation Officer did not have the jurisdiction to pass the order imposing penalty. It has also challenged the order of the Excise and Taxation Officer on the ground of violations of the principles of natural justice, non-application of mind and violation of the provisions of the Act. The or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by way of appeal under article 136 of the Constitution. The High Courts and the Supreme Court have the powers to issue writ of certiorari to quash the decision of the quasi-judicial authorities. This power can be effectively exercised only if the impugned order contains reasons. If the order is bereft of reasons, the courts cannot examine the correctness of the order under challenge and we cannot countenance a situation in which the administrative authorities may stultify the power to judicial review vesting in the High Courts and the Supreme Court simply by not recording reasons in support of their decisions. 6.. Having indicated the theoretical aspect of the requirement of passing of speaking order by quasi-judicial authorities we may take notice of some important decisions on the subject. 7.. In Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala [1961] 31 Comp Cas 387; AIR 1961 SC 1669, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court quashed the order passed by the Central Government in exercise of its appellate powers under section 111(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 only on the ground that reasons had not been given in support of the order passed by the Deputy Secretary w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s or irrelevant considerations, will be subject to judicial scrutiny and correction. A speaking order will at its best be a reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard. There is an essential distinction between a court and an administrative Tribunal. A Judge is trained to look at things objectively, uninfluenced by consideration of policy or expediency; but, an executive officer generally looks at things from the stand-point of policy and expediency. The habit of mind of an executive officer so formed cannot be expected to change from function to function or from act to act. So it is essential that some restrictions shall be imposed on Tribunals in the matter of passing orders affecting the rights of parties; and the least they should do is to give reasons for their orders. Even in the case of appellate courts invariably reasons are given, except when they dismiss an appeal or revision in limine and that is because the appellate or revisional court agrees with the reasoned judgment of the subordinate court or there are no legally permissible grounds to interfere with it. But the same reasoning cannot apply to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.. In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha AIR 1969 SC 1297, a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court dealt with the issue in the context of an order passed by the Commissioner in exercise of powers under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879. The Supreme Court extracted the order passed by the Commissioner which was under: "From this inspection the contentions of the municipality as to the existence of the various roads as well as the nature of the Kharaba land have been proved beyond doubt. In light of the above arguments as well as the site inspection and the papers of the case, I set aside the order of the Collector granting N.A. Permission. I consider, on weighing all evidence cited above, that the land does not belong to Shri Raghav Natha." Their Lordships held that the order passed by the Commissioner was liable to be quashed on the ground that it did not contain reasons and observed: "We are also of the opinion that the order of the Commissioner should be quashed on the ground that he did not give any reasons for his conclusions. We have already extracted the passage above which shows that after reciting the various contentions he baldly state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or unfairness in the conclusion. The authority will adduce reasons which will be regarded as fair and legitimate by a reasonable man and will discard irrelevant or extraneous considerations. Second, it is a well-known principle that justice should not only be done but should also appear to be done. Unreasoned conclusions may be just but they may not appear to be just to those who read them. Reasoned conclusions, on the other hand, will have also the appearance of justice. Third, it should be remembered that an appeal generally lies from the decisions of judicial and quasi-judicial authorities to this Court by special leave granted under article 136. A judgment which does not disclose the reasons, will be of little assistance to the court." 14.. In Ajantha Industries v. Central Board of Direct Taxes [1976] 102 ITR 281 (SC); AIR 1976 SC 437, the requirement of recording of reasons under section 127(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has been held to be mandatory. In that case the Supreme Court observed: "When law requires reasons to be recorded in a particular order affecting prejudicially the interests of any person, who can challenge the order in court, it ceases to be a mere admin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative order made by the Commission and does not record any reasons whatsoever in support of it." 17.. In S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1984, a Constitution Bench examined the Indian, American, English and Australian law on the subject and after reviewing several decisions of the apex Court and foreign courts it concluded: "The decisions of this Court referred to above indicate that with regard to the requirement to record reasons the approach of this Court is more in line with that of the American courts. An important consideration which has weighed with the court for holding that an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial functions must record the reasons for its decision, is that such a decision is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under article 136 of the Constitution as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court or the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the court in taking this view are that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Central Government rejecting an application filed by the petitioners for seeking consent of the Central Government for the purpose of eviction of Consulate-General of USSR from the premises belonging to the petitioners was challenged by way of writ petition filed under article 32 of the Constitution. Their Lordships held that the rejection of the application only by use of the expression "political grounds" did not satisfy the requirement of speaking order. Their Lordships quashed the order and remanded the case to the Central Government for fresh decision. While doing so, the apex Court observed: "It is not clear what political considerations necessitated the rejection of the application. The Central Government while considering the application under section 86 of the Code must decide the application in accordance with the provisions of the section itself and state clearly and intelligibly its reasons for rejecting the application." 19.. In his dissenting opinion in Krishna Swami v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 1407; [1992] 4 SCC 605, K. Ramaswamy, J., brought out the importance of the recording of reasons in the following words: "Undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democrac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he rival contentions and in the last paragraph it recorded the conclusion in the following words: "After going through the file and considering the arguments advanced by the parties, I am of the considered view that imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 14-B(7) of the Act ibid was valid and accordingly the appeal is dismissed." 22.. A bare reading of the above extracted portion of the impugned order shows that the Tribunal has not recorded any reason in support of its conclusion that the imposition of penalty is justified. This order depicts complete nonapplication of mind by the Tribunal to the grounds raised in the memo of appeal and the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. Even this much has not been recorded by the Tribunal that it agrees with the findings recorded by the Excise and Taxation Officer and the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and that the appeal is meritless. In our opinion, the manner in which the Tribunal has decided the appeal cannot in any manner be treated as satisfactory. The learned Tribunal should have kept in view the fact that the order of penalty passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer had grave consequences upon t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
