Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J.@mdashLearned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi has passed a one line order dated 10th October, 2013 which is absolutely cryptic, obnoxious and without any reasons. The said order is as under:
"Perused the record. Therefore, the case is, hereby rejected. Accordingly, this case stand disposed off."
This type of order is being passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this order is passed in Revision Case No. CC(S) 333/13, Period 2007-08 (VAT), which is at Annexure-12 to the memo of this writ petition. This type of order cannot be passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi, when this petitioner is challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chaibasa Circle, Chaibasa. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially stay has been granted by this Court vide order dated 4th March, 2014 and the condition was imposed to deposit Rs. 50 Lakhs which has already been complied with and, therefore, let the matter be remanded to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi to decide afresh the Revision Case No. CC(S) 333/13 in accordance with law and the amount already deposited may kindly be refunded.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the powers exercised by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi is a suo motu power and accordingly he has exercised his jurisdiction and decide the aforesaid revision case.
3. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and especially looking to the nature of order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi, we hereby quash and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 10th October, 2013, which is at Annexure-12 to the memo of this writ petition, mainly for the following facts and reasons:
(i) The petitioner is an assessee, who has preferred Revision Case No. CC(S) 333/13 for the period 2007-08 against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chaibasa Circle, Chaibasa dated 5th December, 2011. In the revision case, several grounds have been argued out basically the matter has been arrived because of the audit objection and the difference in the quantity of iron ore extracted. The petitioner has to supply the data of the iron ore excavated. A copy of the said data is also with the District Mining Officer, Chaibasa. In A.G. Audit, both the figures namely figure of iron ore extracted and dispatch was not tallying with the figure given by the District Mining Officer for the year 2007-08 and, therefore, whole case has been started and ultimately an order has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chaibasa Circle, Chaibasa dated 5th December, 2011 imposing liability of the tax upon the petitioner at approximately Rs. 120 Lakhs. This order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chaibasa Circle, Chaibasa under Sections 40(1) and 37(6) of the Jharkhand Valued Added Tax Act, 2005 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter referred as the "Act, 2005").
(ii) It further appears that against this order, Revision Case No. CC(S) 333/13 was preferred by this petitioner under Section 80(4) of the Act, 2005 before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The arguments were canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hearing was also given to the departmental representative, looking to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 10th October, 2013 (Annexure-12 to the memo of this writ petition).
(iii) The reasoning given in paragraphs of the said order read as under:
"Perused the record. Therefore, the case is, hereby rejected. Accordingly, this case stand disposed off."
This order is no order in the eye of law, at all. It ought to be kept in mind by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi that whenever he is deciding the revision case under the Act, 2005, he should pass reasoned order because reason is the soul of the order. Always reasons should be given while passing the order in the revision case so that other authorities may know what is running in the mind of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi while passing the order in the revision case. This reasoning is also very helpful for further authorities like the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, thereafter the High Court and, thereafter Hon''ble the Supreme Court. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes is an expert of his own subject under the Act, 2005. He can always give good reasons for his decision and this reasoning can be well understood by further Commercial Taxes Tribunal, by the High Court and by Hon''ble the Supreme Court. Moreover, this type of reasons will also be helpful in the interpretation of the concerned section of the assessee. Not to give reasons and to pass an order while finally disposing of any matter is nothing, but, whimsical approach of the said authority and it reflects total non application of mind on the part of the said authority. The Court is known for its reasoned orders. Non-speaking order is bound to be quashed. In this case also, we are not much criticizing the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi. Suffice it to say that there is need to give reason in stead of one line order that: "Perused the record. Therefore, the case is, hereby rejected." We do not know what he has perused and what the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes has understood. It appears that there is need to give guidance to this officer.
(iv) It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
"19. Modification of the scheme is a quasi-judicial function while modifying or cancelling a scheme. The State Government is duty-bound to consider the objections and to give reasons either to accept or reject them. The rule of reason is anti-thesis to arbitrariness in action and is a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice.
20. In
6. xxx It is now settled law that where an authority makes an order in exercise of a quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. That has been laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court ending with N.M. Desai v. Testeels Ltd. But, unfortunately, the Assistant Collector did not choose to give any reasons in support of the order made by him confirming the demand for differential duty. This was in plain disregard of the requirement of law. The Collector in revision did give some sort of reason but it was hardly satisfactory. He did not deal in his order with the arguments advanced by the appellants in their representation dated December 8, 1961 which were repeated in the subsequent representation dated June 4, 1965. It is not suggested that the Collector should have made an elaborate order discussing the arguments of the appellants in the manner of a Court of law. But the order of the Collector could have been a little more explicit and articulate so as to lend assurance that the case of the appellants had been properly considered by him. If courts of law are to be replaced by a administrative authorities and tribunals, as indeed, in some kinds of cases, with the proliferation of Administrative Law, they may have to be so replaced, it is essential that administrative authorities and tribunals should accord fair and proper hearing to the persons sought to be affected by their orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of the orders made by them. Then alone administrative authorities and tribunals exercising quasi-judicial function will be able to justify their existence and carry credibility with the people by inspiring confidence in the adjudicatory process. The rule requiring reasons to be given in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. xxx.
21. This Court in Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank''s case (supra) while relying upon
8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in
22. A Constitution Bench of this Court has laid down in
Undoubtedly, in a parliamentary democracy governed by rule of law, any action, decision or order of any statutory/public authority/functionary must be founded upon reasons stated in the order or staring from the record. Reasons are the links between the material, the foundation for their erection and the actual conclusions. They would also demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached. Lest it would be arbitrary, unfair and unjust, violating Article 14 or unfair procedure offending Article 21. But exceptions are envisaged keeping institutional pragmatism into play, conscious as we are of each other''s limitations.
23. In
We have already dealt with the nature of the power that is exercised by the appropriate Government or the authority while refusing or granting permission Under Sub-section (2) and have found that the said power is not purely administrative in character but partakes of exercise of a function which is judicial in nature. The exercise of the said power envisages passing of a speaking order on an objective consideration of relevant facts after affording an opportunity to the concerned parties. Principles or guidelines are insisted on with a view to control the exercise of discretion conferred by the statute. There is need for such principles or guidelines when the discretionary power is purely administrative in character to be exercised on the subjective opinion of the authority. The same is, however, not true when the power is required to be exercised on objective considerations by a speaking order after affording the parties an opportunity to put forward their respective points of view.
xxxxx
We are also unable to agree with the submission that the requirement of passing a speaking order containing reasons as laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 25N does not provide sufficient safeguard against arbitrary action. In
24. In
20. It is no doubt also true that an appellate or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our view, in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order affirming the views of the lower forum.
25. In
8. The purpose of disclosure of reasons, as held by a Constitution Bench of this Court in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (supra), is that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities. Unless reasons are disclosed, how can a person know whether the authority has applied its mind or not? Also, giving of reasons minimises the chances of arbitrariness. Hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in a judicial or quasi-judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation.
26. In
17. The State Information Commission is performing adjudicatory functions where two parties raise their respective issues to which the State Information Commission is expected to apply its mind and pass an order directing disclosure of the information asked for or declining the same. Either way, it affects the rights of the parties who have raised rival contentions before the Commission. If there were no rival contentions, the matter would rest at the level of the designated Public Information Officer or immediately thereafter. It comes to the State Information Commission only at the appellate stage when rights and contentions require adjudication. The adjudicatory process essentially has to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice, including the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Hearing the parties, application of mind and recording of reasoned decision are the basic elements of natural justice. It is not expected of the Commission to breach any of these principles, particularly when its orders are open to judicial review. Much less to Tribunals or such Commissions, the courts have even made compliance with the principle of rule of natural justice obligatory in the class of administrative matters as well.
28. It is apparent that there is no consideration of the objections except mentioning the arguments of the rival parties. Objections both factual and legal have not been considered much less reasons assigned to overrule them. Even in brief, reasons have not been assigned indicating how objections are disposed of."
(emphasis supplied)
In view of the aforesaid decision, non-reasoned order passed by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 10th October, 2013 in Revision Case No. CC(S) 333/13 (Annexure-12 to the memo of this writ petition) is, hereby, quash and set aside.
(v) Moreover looking to the nature of order, there is no need of this petitioner to approach the Tribunal under Section 80(2)(b) of the Act, 2005.
(vi) We hereby revive the Revision Case No. CC(S) 333/13 and we hereby direct the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi to decide the same in accordance with law, as early as possible and practicable. The petitioner shall remain present before the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 3rd February, 2015 between 11:00 a.m. and 01:00 p.m. and, thereafter, the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi will give his suitable time to the petitioner so that the aforesaid revision case may be decided at the earliest.
4. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, this writ petition is allowed and disposed of. The amount deposited by this petitioner shall be retained by the State till Revision Case No. CC(S) 333/13 is finally decided by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The stay will be continued till Revision Case No. CC(S) 333/13 is decided by the aforesaid authority. The amount deposited shall be adjusted towards the final liability of the tax under the Act, 2005.
