LexM/S. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. versus SALES TAX OFFICER, ROURKELA-1 CIRCLE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 655 MIS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. SALES TAX OFFICER, ROURKELA-1 CIRCLE AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4290 of 2008) JULY 10, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Appeal: Statutory appeal - Disposal of, in casual man- ner - Held: Various important questions of law raised not dealt A B with by first appellate authority - Reading of the order shows c . complete non-application of mind - Matter remitted to first ap- pellate authority for fresh consideration - Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Judgment/Order: Reasoned order - Right to - Held: Spelling out reasons for the order made is one of the salutary D requirement of natural justice - Right to reason is an indis- pensable part of a sound judicial system. F , Appellant-assessee was engaged in carrying on manufacture and sale of various products. Apart from that, the appellant-Company effected transfer of stock of goods E to its branches located at various places of the country. For the assessment year 2001-02, notice was issued for assessment under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and de- mand of Rs.19.25 crores was raised. The appellant filed appeal challenging the assessment order. During the pendency of the appeal, an application for stay was filed. The Assistant commissioner (first appellate authority) di- rected payment of part of the amount. On revision, Com- missioner directed payment of Rs.10 crores. High Court directed deposit of Rs.2 crores. The said order was ques- G tioned in SLP No.5314 of 2006. This Court on 31.3.2006, passed interim order of stay. On 19.4.2006, the First appellate authority dismissed 655 H 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A the appeal and confirmed the order of assessment. On appeal and stay applicati.on, order of deposit of Rs.15 crores was passed. The said order was challenged be- fore the High Court and by the impugned order, the High Court disposed of the said petition without expressing B any opinion on merits but observing that the matter was under examination by this Court. Hence the present ap- peal. c Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to Assistant Commissioner, the Court HELD: 1.1. In normal course, the plea relating to the merits of the assessment, when a statutory remedy has been availed, is not entertainable. But the casual manner in which the first appellate authority has disposed of the 0 .appeal is shocking. A bare reading of the order shows complete non-application of !llind. This is not the way a ~ statutory appeal is to be dis·posed of. Various important questions of law were raised. Unfortunately, even they were not dealt with by the first appellate authority. [Paras E 8, 9] (661-F, 662-F] Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2004) 3 sec 1; Ashok Leyland Limited v. Union of India & Ors. (1997) 9 sec 10 - referred to. • 1.2. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It F introduces clarity in an order and without the sarne it be- ...\ comes lifeless. [Para 1 O] [662-G] Raj Kishore Jha v. State. of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 519 - relied on. G MR. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union (1971) 1 All ER 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974) ICR 120 (NIRC) - referred to. r 1 :3~ Right to reason is an indispensable part of a H sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indi- MIS. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. v. SALES 657 TAX OFFICER, ROURKELA-1 CIRCLE [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] cate an application of mind to the matter before court. An- A other rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary require- ments of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the or- der made; in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judi- B cial or quasi-judi~ial performance. [Para 11) [663-C,D] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4290 of 2008 From the final Order dated 7.9.2006 of the High Court of c Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No. 11192 of 2006 G.E. Vahanvati, S.G., Parag P. Tripathi, A.S.G. Altaf II. Naiyak, A.G., Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.AG., Ranjit Kumar, Rakesh Dwivedi, S. Borthakur, Sunil Kumar Jain, K1rti Renu Mishra, Gopal Singh, Anukul Raj, Sweta Singh, ,Hemantika Wahi, D Pinky, Jesal, R. Sathish, Bharat Swaroop Sharma, Vijay Kumar Pandita, Dayan Krishnan, Neelam Sharma, T.C. Sharma, Neera Gupta, Asha G. Nair, Vismai Rao, D.S. Mahra, V.G.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.