Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2018 (10) TMI 1149

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ulously followed by the authorities. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration - petition allowed by way of remand. - W.P.(MD)Nos.10792 & 10793 of 2010 And M.P.(MD)Nos.1 & 1 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 26-9-2018 - Mrs. Justice J. Nisha Banu For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar For the Respondent : Mr.D.Muruganantham, Additional Government Pleader (In both petitions) COMMON ORDER These writ petitions have been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned orders of the respondent in TNGST Nos. 5562514/2004-05 and 5562514/2005-06, respectively, dated 04.06.2010 and to direct the respondent to pass fresh orders, after considering the deviation reports. 2. As the issue inv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsidering this report, the same authority has now passed the present impugned order, raising demands. He would vehemently contend that though the respondent, in the deviation report, has made an observation that the petitioner has produced the records and the same has been perused, in the impugned order, there is no whisper as to the same. Instead, a single line observation alone was made and therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned orders. 5. Learned Additional Government Pleader, while defending the impugned orders, would submit that deviation proposal submitted by the respondent to the higher authorities was partly allowed and the respondent was directed to verify the remaining part, with the available documents. Thereaf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case of Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar vs. State of U.P. , reported in (1970) 1 SCC 764 has held that merely giving an opportunity of hearing is not enough and further pointed out that where the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reason is even greater. Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim ensure that the decision is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy, but was arrived at after considering the relevant law and that the decision was just. 10. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court time and again insisted on the requirement of recording reasons and the quasi judicial authorities to pass a speaking order, the same is not scrupulously followed by the authorities. 11. In s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates