LexASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, WORKS CONTRACT & LEASING, KOTA versus M/S. SHUKLA & BROTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2010] 4 S.C.R. 627
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAX
~~- .
Q§PA~TMENT, W()RKS CONTRACT & LEASING, KOTA
v.
MIS. SHUKLA & BROTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3289 of 2010)
APRIL 15, 2010
[S.H. KAPADIA AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
A
B
Judgment - Re9soned order/judgment - Need for -
Held: Reasonf!d judgment is indispensable part of basic rule C
of law -
R~c.ording pf rey{l$On~ is an essential feature of
dispensation of justice - Courts shodld record reasons for its
conclusions to enable the appellate or higher courts to
understand the q9ntroversy in its correct perspective and to
exercise their jurisdiction in· accordance with law - A judgment o
without reasons causes prejudice to the affected party and/ .
hampers proper administration of justice - Litigant has a
legitimate expectation of knowing reasons for rejection of his
Off3im - Requirement of recording reasons is applicable with
greater rigor to the judicial proceedings - Reasons for an order E
ensure:;; and enhances public confidence - Reasoned orders
are required both passed at admission stage or at the final
hearing -
On facts impugned judgment was not reasoned,
hence remitted to High Court - Principle of Natural justice -
Administration of Justice - Principle of legitimate expectation F
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 14 r. 2 rlw 0. 20 r. 1 -
Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.
An assessment order was set aside by appellate
authority as well as Tax Board. Revision petition against
the same was dismissed by High Court.
G
In appeal to this Court, appellant-Revenue
contended that High Court dismissed the Revision in a
cryptic order without giving any reasons.
627
H
628
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010) 4 S.C.R.
A
Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to
High Court, the Court
HELD: 1. It would have been desirable if the High
Court would have recorded some reasons for rejecting
8
the Revision Petition preferred by the Department.
Despite heavy quantum of cases in Courts, it would
neither be permissible nor possible to state as a principle
of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on
administrative action and more particularly judgment of
C courts in appeal before the higher court, providing of
reasons can never be dispensed with. [Paras 8 and 9]
[636-D; 636-E·G]
D
S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594,
relied on.
2. In exercise of the power of judicial review, the
concept of reasoned orders/actions has been enforced
equally by the foreign courts as by the courts in India.
The administrative authority and tribunals are obliged to
E give reasons, absence whereof could render the order
liable to judicial chastise. Thus, it will not be far from
alisolute principle of law that the courts should record
reasons for its conclusions to enable the appellate or
higher courts to exercise their jurisdiction appropriately
F and in accordance with law. 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. To sub-serve the
G purpose of justice delivery system, therefore, it is
essential that the Courts should record reasons for its
conclusions, whether disposing of the case at admission
stage or after regular hearing. [Para 11] [637-D-G]
H
3. Recording of reasons is an essential feature of
ASSTT. COMMNR., COMMR. TAX DEPTI. WORKS CONTRACT & 629
LEASING, KOTA v. SHUKLA & BROTHERS
dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the
A
court with any grievance in accordance with law is
entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his
prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of
reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause
prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more
B
particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice.
These principles are not only applicable to administrative
or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and:
in fact, with ~ greater degree of precision to judicial
pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes c
prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced,
as that litigant is unable to know the ground which
weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also
causes impediments in his taking adequate and
appropriate grounds before Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.