Tata Steel Limited vs Union Of India & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 4665 Cal

2.8.2023
    ks                    WPA 15455 of 2023
  sl. 6-8                       With
                          WPA 18414 of 2022
                                With
                          WPA 2960 of 2022

                           Tata Steel Limited
                                   Vs
                         Union of India & Ors.

            Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar, Ld. Sr. Adv.,
            Mr. Avra Mazumder,
            Mr. Kausheyo Roy,
            Ms. Alisha Das,
            Mr. Suman Bhowmik
                         ... For the Petitioner.
            Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee,
            Mr. K.K. Maiti,
            Mr. Tapan Bhanja
                            ... For the Customs Authority.
            Ms. Sanjukta Gupta
                             ... For the UOI.


                  Written instructions dated 1st August, 2023,

            issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Mini

            Custom House, Haldia, West Bengal filed by Mr. Maiti,

            learned Advocate appearing for the respondents be

kept with the record.

Heard learned advocates appearing for the

parties.

By these writ petitions, petitioner has challenged

the impugned final assessment of Bill of Entries being

Annexures P-10, P-24 and P-18 respectively to the writ

petitions, on the ground that the same is in violation of

principles of natural justice by not taking into

consideration the objections/representations made by

the petitioner from time to time and the order is a non-

speaking order containing no reason at all and it is

merely a piece of computation sheet.

Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on

behalf of the respondents submits that no recorded

reason is required to be given in the final assessment

of the Bill of Entries in question and as such the

impugned purported assessment orders cannot be

called a non-speaking orders.

It is a well-settled principle of law that every

order by an administrative authority in exercise of its

judicial or quasi-judicial function must be supported

by reason. Such principles of law has been settled by

the Five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in the case of S. N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India

reported in (1990) 4 SCC 594 and particularly

paragraph 40 of the said judgment is relevant which is

quoted herein: -

"For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded

that except in cases where the requirement has been

dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication,

an administrative authority exercising judicial or

quasi-judicial functions is required to record the

reasons for its decision."

Considering the facts and circumstances of the

case and in view of the impugned orders being patently

non-speaking orders and by affidavits the same cannot

be improved and keeping the matters pending will

serve no purpose, this Court thinks it fit to remand the

matters back to the adjudicating authority concerned

to pass fresh assessment orders by passing a reasoned

and speaking order in accordance with law and after

giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its

authorized representatives, within 8 weeks from the

date of communication of this order.

The respondent authorities concerned shall pass

composite assessment orders relating to Bill of Entries

referred in Annexures P-10, P-24 and P-18 respectively

to the writ petitions.

With this observation and direction, these writ

petitions being WPA 15455 of 2023, WPA 18414 of

2022 and WPA 2960 of 2022 are disposed of.

( Md. Nizamuddin, J.)