M/s. Bharat Constructions Company vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax, MP and others

Shantanu Kemkar, J.—By filing this petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the imposition of Entry Tax on purchase of plant and machinery acquired for execution of work contract during the period 01.04.1987 to 31.03.1988 vide order dated 31.10.1998 passed by the third respondent in Case No. 10/1988/Remand/14/96/ET (Annexure P/2) and the order dated 30.05.2000 passed by the second respondent, affirming the order of the third respondent. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the revisional order dated 30.05.2000 (Annexure P/1) passed in Case No. 08/2000/ET/UJN is a non-speaking order and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. He argued that the grounds raised in the revision petition and the written submissions (Annexure P/5) submitted before the second respondent have not at all been gone into and the revision has been decided, affirming the order of the third respondent.

Having gone through the order dated 30.05.2000 (Annexure P/1), we find that while deciding the petitioner''s revision petition, the revisional authority has not passed speaking order. The grounds raised by the petitioner through its written submissions (Annexure P/5) have not at all been dealt with. In the absence of reasons in the revisional order, the same cannot be sustained.

It has now been well settled that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the minds of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Right of reason is an indispensable part of the sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the orders made, in other words a speaking out. [See Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971) 1 All ER 1148 (CA), Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC), Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle and Others, , State of Himachal Pradesh v. Parashram AIR SCW 2008 373 , State of Punjab Vs. Bhag Singh, ].

In the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and Brothers, , the Supreme Court reiterating its earlier view and has stated that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant, who approaches the Court with any grievance, in accordance with law, is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to the administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant. It is the reasoning alone that can enable a higher or an appellate Court to appreciate the controversy in issue in its correct perspective and to hold whether the reasoning recorded by the Court whose order is impugned, is sustainable in law and whether it has adopted the correct legal approach.

Having regard to the aforesaid settled legal position, we have no option, but to set aside the order dated 30.05.2000 (Annexure P/1) passed by the second respondent and remit the matter to the second respondent i.e. revisional authority to pass a fresh reasoned order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.

No order as to costs.