2023 (6) TMI 640 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT

Scope of order of the tribunal - Levy of tax on self consumption of petrol - disallowance of shortages regarding evaporation loss - selling of downgraded HSD as LDO - use of the self-consumption - levy of penalty in terms of Section 5 of Jammu and Kashmir Motors Spirit & Diesel Oil (Taxation of Sales) Act, 2005 - HELD THAT:- It is settled proposition of law that failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. The reasons are live links between the minds of the decision maker to the controversy in question and the decision or the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal or the Court. It goes without saying that the reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity.

Right to reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system, which indicates the application of mind to the matter before the Court. Another rationale could be that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirement of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the orders made, in other words, a speaking order, but in the present case, the orders passed by the Tribunal are silent as no reasons have been spelled out with respect to all the questions of law raised in the applications - The non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities. Firstly, it may cause grave prejudice to the affected party and secondly it hampers the proper administration of justice. These two cardinal principles are not only applicable to the administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and in face with great degree of precision to judicial pronouncements.

Reliance is being placed on the Judgment passed in case titled ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, WORKS CONTRACT & LEASING, KOTA VERSUS M/S SHUKLA & BROTHERS [2010 (4) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court in similar facts and circumstances has remanded the matter back to the High Court with a request to hear the case de-novo and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. M/s. Bajaj Herbals Pvt. Ltd, [2022 (4) TMI 398 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that unreasoned order should be remanded back to decide and dispose of the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.

The Tribunal has failed to record any reasons with respect to seven out of eight questions raised in the reference applications. It is well settled law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various and authoritative pronouncements mentioned supra that reasons must be recorded in a judicial order even when it relates to the non-reference of certain questions raised in the reference applications. The applicants had the right to know that what weighed with the Tribunal in not referring or even discussing the questions raised by the applicants in the applications.

It is deemed appropriate to dispose of all the STR’s and remand back matter to the Tribunal to decide and dispose of the reference applications afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. If the Tribunal is of the opinion that proposed questions of law raised in the reference applications are not substantial questions of law and they are on factual aspects, it will be open for the Tribunal to consider the same in accordance with law.

Revision disposed off.