M/S. Value Vision Opticals Privae Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged orders denying input tax credit for assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. The primary contention was that the impugned orders were non-speaking, unreasoned, and failed to consider the petitioner's detailed replies to the show-cause notices.
Held
The Court held that the impugned orders were mechanical and lacked proper application of mind, as they did not address the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the orders were set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the impugned orders denying input tax credit were legally sustainable due to being non-speaking and failing to consider the assessee's replies. The importance of reasoned orders in quasi-judicial proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
llowing: COMMON ORDER The Court .rr" il L ,/'
/ THE HON'BLI SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSITY AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE N.TUKARAMJI W.P.Nos.26384 26404 and,26418 of 2o23 COMMON ORDER: (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.SAM KOSHY) When these matters are taken up for hearing today, it has been informed by the parties that an identical Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.539 of 2024 has already been allowed and disposed of uide order, dated 09.O1.2O24. 2. In view of the fact that the identical matter has already been allowed by tJlis Court, we are inclined to allow these Writ Petitions in terms of t1le order passed in W.P.No.539 of 2024 decided on O9.O1.2O24 on similar terms.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these Writ Petitions, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. . T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT GISTRAR //// SE OFFICER 1 . The Assista Division, Hyddcllmmissioner (ST), Punjagutta Circle, Hyderabad Rural baU
The Chief Conimi$ioner of State Tax, Commercial Tax Complex, Nampally 3. retariat Building,
MMERCIAL TAX 6. for the State of 7. Two CD Copies (Along with the ,/, I To, BSR GJ g of order dated 09/01/2024, in w.P.No.539 0t 20241 Telangana at bad [OUTI
lt HIGH COURT DATED: 10t01 24 COMMON OR R wP.Nos.2ffiB/J Luooo and 2641 ALLOWNG A THE WRIT PETITIONS, I WTHOUT COS S @)cq'iet + 8 ot 2023 3, 1i t4AB 7rr2t * lHE SI4 14: FsPAlCtrEo (,rI C, o * 1A' i / l I I
o THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No. 539 of2o.24 ORDER:{per llo n'bte Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHI/) Heard Mr. V. Bhaskar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. V. Siddharth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajashekar Reddy, learned Special Standing Counsel for Commercial Taxes, appearing for the respondents.
The chalenge in the present writ petition is to the order dated 06. 12.2023 passed by respondent No. 1 under Section 73 of the Telangana .Goods and Services Act, ground that the 2OI7. The primary challenge is on the rmpugned order is a non-speaking and unreasoned one.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner drew th€ attention of .the Court to the show_cause notice that was initia'y issued to the petitioner on 05-02.2022. The rearned senior counser f,rther drew the attention of court to the deta,ed replies to the. show_cause notice submitted by the petitioner on 27.07.2022 a\I. \9p2.2O23. However, in the, impugned order dated 06. 12.2023, there does totlln.rr to be any considerarin,,
r 2 of any of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the said two replies submitted to the show-cause notice.
A plain reading of the impugned order, the observations and conclusions arrived at by the Assessing Authority would clearly give an indication of the whole order having been passed in a mechanical manner. Neither is there any observation made by the Authority concerned to the effect that the replies given by the petitioner herein to the show-cause notice were either un- satisfactory or bereft of details, nor was there any discussion to the contentions that were raised.
The frnding grven by the authority appears to be a general assessment made in a mechanical manner which is not the manner in which an assessing offrcer has to pass the order. While passing an order-in-origina_I, where factua-l matrices have to be narrated in detail dealing with the so called allegations leveled against the petitioner. The authority also has to deal with the contentions that were raised by the assessee in their reply submitted to the show-cause notice.
It is, by now, Iaw is well settled that even if orders are passed by the quasi-judicial authorities or authorities on the administrative side, reasons are required to be spelt out. The ..1 I I I i
3 o orders are always expected to be speaking orders so.that the aggrieved persons may be able to clearly lsrow as to what were the shortcomings in their cases or what were the reasons for which the authorities have not accepted the contentions that they had raised. 7 . It is now a well settled principte of law that giving reasons is an indispensable component of decision making process and the same equally applies upon quasi-judicial authority and even upon the administrative bodies. The Supreme Court always has opined that the order passed by quasi-judicial authority or even the administrative authorit5r alfecting the rights of the parties must be a speaking order. fhe question regarding recording of reasons, its importance and necessity came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in:the.gase of Kranti Associates Private Limtted &tAnother.v.-.Masood Ahm6d Khan & Othersl wherein the Supreme Court.r"lras ziexlensively and elaborately dealt with the 8. Similarly in thi case of East Coast Railway and Another v. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others2, the Supreme Court in very 1 (2O10) 9 SCC 496 2 (2OtOl 7 SCC 678 - ;---r;-.
4 I i r, categorical terms has held that arbitrariness in making of an order by an authority can manifest itself in different forms. Every order passed by a public authority must disclose due and proper application of mind by the persons making the order. Application of' mind is best demonstrated by disclosure of mind by the authority making the order ald disclosure is best done by recording the reasons that led the authorit5r to pass the order in question. Absence of reasons either in the order passed by the authority or in the record contemporaneously maintained is clearly suggestive of the order being arbitrary hence legally unsustainable. In the absence of reasons in support of the order it is diffrcutt to assume that the authority had properly applied its mind before passing of the order.
Likewise, again in case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tar Departaent, Works Contract ard Leasing, Kota v. Shukla and Brgthers3, the Supreme Court has held that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non_recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the alfected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper I 'lzotoy + scc z8s
5 administration of.justice.- A judgment without reasons causes I prejudice to the:person,.{gdinst,whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable., to: Fnow, the. ground which weighed with the authority in rejecting his claim and also carses impediments in his taking adequate aird appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of chJenge tb that order.
In the aforesaid factual backdrop and legal judicial precedents, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order, at the first instance, does not appear to be a reasoned and . '::. .''' .i speaking one. Moreover, it does not deal with any of the contentions raisbd'by the petitioner in their reply submitted to the .'.. ..;..'... show cause noticd. . On . this very ground, in exercise of the . ,'r,, extraordinar5r writ juri iction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of',India, we intend to interdict the impugned order. The impugned order, therefore, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to respondent No.l to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner in their two replies to the show cause notice and p.4ss a fresh order on its own merits in accordance with ':,".'r''l,t.t..i;":'' " "-' law. €- t a I I 6 o
The Writ petition to the aforesaid extent stands allowed. As a sequel, miscellaneous: applications pending if 1ny in.this writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. . :. P.SAM KOStrY, r' N.TUI(ARAMJI, J Date: O9.O1.2024. GSP
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.