Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2019 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 500 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPrinciples of natural justice - case of revisionist is that Tribunal while deciding appeal of the revisionist has not considered any of the grounds raised by him in the appeal - Validity of assessment order - UPVAT Act, 2008 - imposition of penalty - HELD THAT:- Perusal of the impugned order dated 12.09.2014, passed by the Tribunal while deciding appeal of the revisionist has not considered any of the grounds raised by him in the appeal. Perusal of the said order would indicate that the Tribunal has only reiterated the findings of the first Appellate Authority and concluded in paragraph 8 by saying that it agrees with the said findings of the first Appellate Authority and thereby it has rejected the appeal. An order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give reasons is the rule of natural justice - Providing of reasons in orders is of essence in judicial proceedings. Every litigant who approaches the Court with a prayer is entitled to know the reasons for acceptance or rejection of such request. Either of the parties to the lis has a right of appeal and, therefore, it is essential for them to know the considered opinion of the Court to make the remedy of appeal meaningful. It is the reasoning which ultimately culminates into final decision which may be subject to examination of the appellate or other higher Courts. It is a settled canon of legal jurisprudence that the Courts are vested with discretionary powers but such powers are to be exercised judiciously, equitably and in consonance with the settled principles of law. Whether or not, such judicial discretion has been exercised in accordance with the accepted norms, can only be reflected by the reasons recorded in the order impugned before the higher Court. Often it is said that absence of reasoning may ipso facto indicate whimsical exercise of judicial discretion. The Court cannot lose sight of the fact that a losing litigant has a cause to plead and a right to challenge the order if it is adverse to him - Whether an argument was rejected validly or otherwise, reasoning of the order alone can show. To evaluate the submissions is obligation of the Court and to know the reasons for rejection of its contention is a legitimate expectation on the part of the litigant. The matter is remanded back to the Commercial Tax Tribunal to decide the appeal of the revisionist in accordance with law, afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing by means of reasoned and speaking order - revision allowed by way of remand.
|