The Supreme Court has taken strong exception to High Court not taking into consideration writ petitions, ignoring all ground without specifying reason and thus cautioned that Courts can't refuse relief in cryptic manner.
The Division Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna was adjudicating upon an appeal filed aggrieving Bomaby High Court decision dismissing writ petitions challenging the reopening of the assessment/reassessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.
The Court after analysing the orders noted that the said orders are cryptic, nonspeaking and nonreasoned orders. The Court pointed out none of the ground raised was taken for consideration and rather the orders were passed in imprecise manner.
"From the writ petitions produced on record, it appears that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act has been challenged on a number of grounds. None of the grounds raised in the writ petitions has been dealt with and/or considered by the High Court on merits. There is no discussion at all on any of the grounds raised in the writ petitions. The Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions in a most casual manner which is unsustainable. Except stating that ‘we are not inclined to entertain writ petition’, nothing further has been stated by the High Court giving reasons for the disinclination to entertain the writ petitions."
The Court didn't, at all appreciate the manner in which the High Court has dealt with and disposed of the writ petitions without passing any reasoned order.
"When a number of issues/grounds were raised in the writ petitions, it was the duty cast upon the court to deal with the same and thereafter, to pass a reasoned order. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the Courts to give such relief in appropriate cases and the Courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons."
The High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was required to have independently considered whether the question of reopening of the assessment could be raised in a writ petition and if so, whether it was justified or not, the Court noted.
An order bereft of reasoning causes prejudice to the parties
The Court stated that an order bereft of reasoning causes prejudice to the parties because it deprives them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other has lost.
To emphasis the necessity to pass a reasoned order, the Court refrred to Central Board of Trustees Vs. M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., 2018 Latest Caselaw 489 SC wherein it was observed courts need to pass a reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion.
Reasoning: Soul of Judicial Decision
While emphasising the reasons to be given by the High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court referred to Union Public Service Commission Vs. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi, 2021 Latest Caselaw 124 SC wherein it was observed that the reasons constitute the soul of judicial decision and how Judges communicate in their judgment is a defining characteristic of judicial process since quality of justice brings legitimacy to the judiciary. It is further observed that though statistics of disposal of cases is important of higher value is the intrinsic content of judgment. It is further observed that in exercise of powers under Article 226 the courts require to independently consider the issues involved.
In view of the above, the Court noted that the orders are bereft of reasoning as diverse grounds were urged/raised by the parties which ought to have been examined by the High Court in the first place and a clear finding was required to be recorded upon analysing the relevant documents.
The Court thus remanded the matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petitions afresh on merits.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
