Rajasthan High Court
M/S Napin Impex Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Commercial Taxes Dept Anr ... on 1 May, 2024
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:20438-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12510/2017
M/s Napin Impex Pvt. Ltd. H1-864, Riico Ind. Area, Alwar-
Bhiwadi- 301019 Through Its Authorised Re
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Kar
Bhawan, Ambedakar Circle, Janpath, Jaipur.
2. Assistant Commissioner Commercial Taxes Department,
Circle-A, Bhiwadi
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Kumar on behalf of
Mr. A.K.Babbar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Umang Gupta
Ms. Upasana Singh
Ms. Kranti Gaur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Judgment
01/05/2024
AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:-
1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of assessment order
dated 24.01.2017 passed under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax
Act, 2003 (for short the 'Act'), creating a demand of
Rs.27,87,371/-.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was registered under the
Act. The returns for assessment year of 2014-2015 was filed
claiming for Input Tax Credit (for short "ITC").
(Downloaded on 08/05/2024 at 08:43:43 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:20438-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-12510/2017]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that assessment
order is a system generated order passed without application of
mind. There is no reasoning given for disallowing the ITC claimed
in the returns. It is further argued that provisions of Section 23
deals with the deemed assessment and its applicability is subject
to Section 24. As per the order, there was no proceedings initiated
under Section 24 of the Act.
4. Per contra the petitioner has a remedy of appeal. It is argued
that the petitioner in spite of notices issued failed to respond and
produce books of accounts to substantiate the ITC claimed. The
contention is that the reasons for non-allowance of ITC are
reflected in reply filed to writ petition.
5. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to deal
with the objection of alternative remedy raised by the counsel for
the respondents.
6. The Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs.
Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) SCC 1 has carved out the
exceptions for entertaining the writ petition in spite of therebeing
alternative remedy. The relevant para is quoted hereunder:-
"15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court,
having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to
entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court
has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that
if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High
Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the
alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not
[2024:RJ-JP:20438-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-12510/2017]
to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely,
where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of
any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a
violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order
or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an
Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case law on this point
but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool we would rely
on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the
constitutional law as they still hold the field."
7. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that it is a
computer generated computation. Neither the basic facts with
regard to the issuance of notice and non-compliance is mentioned
in the order nor the reasons for disallowance.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kranti Associates Pvt.
Ltd. and another v. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and others
reported in 2010(9) SCC 496 has held that every judicial/quasi
judicial order must be supported by reasons to be recorded in
writing. The operative part of the decision of Supreme Court in
Kranti Associates (supra) read as under:-
"a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such
decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of
its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the
wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it
must also appear to be done as well.
[2024:RJ-JP:20438-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-12510/2017]
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on
any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or
even administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the
decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
component of a decision making process as serving
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even
by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to
rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour
of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is
virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying
the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be
as different as the judges and authorities who deliver
them. All these decisions serve one common purpose
which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant
factors have been objectively considered. This is important
for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery
system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough
about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to
know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of
precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is
not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of
restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision
[2024:RJ-JP:20438-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-12510/2017]
making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less
prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.
n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from
the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and
was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence.
o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital
role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving reasons for
the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due
Process".
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill and
Ors. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and
Ors. AIR 1978 SC 851 has held that:-
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a
statutory functionary makes an order based on certain
grounds, its validity must be judges by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh
reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.
Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the
time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later brought out.
In Gordhandas Bhanji A.I.T. 1952 S.C. 16 it was
further observed:-
"Orders are not old wine becoming better as they grow
older."
10. The present is a case of violation of principle of natural
justice, creation of demand by non application of mind and falls
within the exceptions carved out for exercising writ jurisdiction in
spite of an alternative remedy.
[2024:RJ-JP:20438-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-12510/2017]
11. On the one hand, the assessment order was passed under
Section 23(1) of the Act as a deemed assessment and at the same
time, demand was created by disallowing ITC.
12. The impugned order is quashed. The respondents shall be at
liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.
13. The writ petition is allowed.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J
Anu /Chandan/51
Whether Reportable: Yes
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
