TMI Blog1982 (2) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed four writ applications questioning the validity of the order. As all the cases raise common questions of law and are based on similar facts we propose to dispose of them by a common order. 2. The petitioner contends that, (a) the impugned order has no backing or reasons and suffers from infirmity of non-application of the mind by. the authority to the requirements of the provisions of Section 18(2A) of the Act , (b) the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice, and (c) his claim for waiver was turned down mechanically without due application of mind. 3. For late submissions of the returns the WTO imposed penalties on the assessee under Section 18(1) of the Act for the assessment years. The assessee filed fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in the cases but went so far as to hold that the explanations for late submission of the returns were bona fide, yet, he did not waive the penalties because the explanations did not constitute conclusive defence and reasonable cause contemplated under Section 18(1)(a). It is apparent that the learned Commissioner overlooked the respective scope, ambit and contours of Section 18(1)(a) and Section 18(2A). The question of reasonable cause crops up for consideration under Section 18(1)(a) and if the authority concerned is satisfied that there is a reasonable cause for the delay then there cannot be any occasion to levy penalty and the question of invoking Section 18(2A) never arises. Such order may be corrected by the Commissioner in exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vity of default; (b) whether the assessee had defaulted to make any wrongful gain for himself or to cause wrongful loss to the Revenue; (c) the nature of the conduct and behaviour of the assessee throughout the proceedings and therebefore. The Commissioner is to consider all such relevant factors to find out whether the assessee should be asked to pay the penalty for the wrong committed by him. The quality of the wrong or default is undoubtedly a relevant factor. However, the factors indicated above are only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, one thing is for sure that though the assessee is penalised for his default the Commissioner may waive the penalty imposable. In the instant case, none of the relevant factors required to be co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, accordingly, necessary for the quasi-judicial bodies to give reasons. There is a general obligation on adjudicatory bodies to give reasons for the decisions even when statutes do not impose such a condition. This obligation to give reasons forms a part of natural justice and springs from the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 32, 226, 136 and 227 of the Constitution. We rely on Mahabir Prasad v. State of UP [1971] 1 SCR 201; State of a Gujarat v. Krishna Cinema [1971] 2 SCR 110 , Chowgule Co. v. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 2021 ; State of Punjab v. Bakhtawar Singh AIR 1972 SC 2083 ; Narayan Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1972 CriLJ 1323 , Siemens Engg. Mfg. Co. v. Union of India AIR 1976 SC 1785 . An adjudicatory authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the minimum requirements of the rule of law. (e) Section 18(2A) confers a statutory right on the assessee. The authority empowered must consider the claims of an assessee. It is required to pass an order on consideration of the assertions of the assessee and the exercise calls for a reasoned order. (f) It is a general duty of the quasi-judicial authority to act fairly. Fairness founded on reasons is the essence of the guarantee epitomised in Article 14. We extract what their Lordships observed in Manager, Government Branch Press v. D. B. Belliappa (1979)ILLJ156SC . 'The giving of reasons', as Lord Denning put it in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 1 All ER 1148, 'is one of the fundamentals of good adminis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed only in the right and appropriate way which the statute, when conferring it, is presumed to have intended. We extract an intrinsic observation of Lord Denning M. R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971] 2 QB 175. The discretion of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That means at least this : the statutory body must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous considerations which it ought not to have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the statutory body may have acted in good faith ; nevertheless the decision will be set aside. That as established by Padfield v. Ministe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|