9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... grounds that the Petitioner has raised in their Appeal. However, when we look into the impugned Order, all what is reflected is that the Appellate Authority has literally considered only the factual aspects of the case, that is, the date on which the Petitioner was supposed to submit their return and the defaults on the part of the Petitioner and the factual details in respect of the statutory provisions as is required. In addition, the order also reflects the date on which the demand notices were issued to the Petitioner. However, none of these paragraphs have the Appellate Authority's dealing with the specific objections and grounds that the Petitioner has raised in their memo of Appeal. It is by now a well settled position of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Appeal which the Petitioner had preferred was for challenging the Order passed by Respondent No.4 on 20.8.2018 whereby the tax liability of ₹ 1,94,79,059/- has been imposed upon the Petitioner with interest thereon to the tune of ₹ 31,60,213/- and also penalty of an amount of ₹ 19,47,906/- on the said amount. 3. The ground of challenge by the Petitioner-Company in the present Writ Petition is that they had raised various grounds in their Appeal and the Respondent No.3-Appellate Authority has also quoted most of these grounds in paragraph 2 of the impugned Order, however, none of these grounds have been discussed and dealt with while passing the final order in the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the impugned Order and submits that the Order passed by the Appellate Authority is self-explanatory so far as the liability on the part of the Petitioner is concerned. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that from perusal of the impugned Order it would reflect that on the date of hearing the Petitioner-Company did not mark their presence in any manner either through their representative or the lawyer through which they were represented, and as such the Petitioner cannot raise these grounds at a later stage before this Court by way of a Writ Petition. 6. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of the impugned Order, what clearly reflects is the fact that it is true that the Appellate Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llenging the order passed by the Assessing Authority on 20.8.2018. 8. In East Coast Railway and Another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others with K. Surekha Vs. Mahadeo Appa Rao and Others [ 2010 (7) SCC 678 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court in very categorical terms has held that arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the persons making the order. Application of mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order and disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authority to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
