TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (7) TMI 652
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n which the petitioner has challenged the impugned order is that it does not satisfy the test of a speaking order inasmuch as it does not contain reasons on which the concerned authority declined the prayer for refund/adjustment of the tax already paid. 3.. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 it has not been controverted that the impugned order does not contain reasons for rejecting the petitioner's prayer for refund/adjustment of the tax already paid. 4.. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is settled law that every quasi-judicial authority is duty-bound to record reasons for its decision and communicate the same to the affected person. The requirement of rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he power of judicial review and we cannot countenance a situation in which the administrative authorities vested with the power to decide the rights of the parties may stultify the powers of the court simply by not recording reasons in support of their decisions or by refraining from communicating such reasons to the affected person. This is the reason why the courts have insisted on rigorous compliance of the requirement of recording of reasons and communication thereof by every quasijudicial authority. Some of the judicial precedents, which can appropriately be cited to support the above mentioned proposition, are: 1.. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwala AIR 1961 SC 1669; 2.. Bhagat Raja v. Union of India AIR 196....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as well as the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts under article 227 of the Constitution and that the reasons, if recorded, would enable this Court and the High Courts to effectively exercise the appellate or supervisory power. But this is not the sole consideration. The other considerations which have also weighed with the Court in taking this view are that the requirement of recording reasons would (i) guarantee consideration by the authority, (ii) introduce clarity in the decisions; and (iii) minimise chances of arbitrariness in decision-making. In this regard a distinction has been drawn between ordinary Courts of law and Tribunals and authorities exercising judicial functions on the ground that a Judge is trained to look at th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the reasons are clear and explicit so as to indicate that the authority has given due consideration to the points in controversy. The need for recording of reasons is grater in a case where the order is passed at the original stage. The appellate or revisional authority, if it affirms such an order, need not give separate reasons if the appellate or revisional authority agrees with the reasons contained in the order under challenge." 6.. In Testeels Ltd. v. N.M. Desai, Conciliation Officer AIR 1970 Gujarat 1, a Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court has made an extremely lucid enunciation of law on the subject and we can do no better than to extract some of the observations made in that decision. The same are: "The necessity of giv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sult would be that the power of judicial review would be stultified and no redress being available to the citizen, there would be insidious encouragement to arbitrariness and caprice. If this requirement is insisted upon, then, they will be subject to judicial scrutiny and correction." 7.. If the facts of the present case are examined in the light of the propositions of law laid down in the aforementioned decisions, we do not find any difficulty in holding that the rejection of the petitioner's prayer for refund/adjustment of tax is vitiated by arbitrariness and violation of the rules of natural justice. A reading of the impugned order leaves no manner of doubt that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner has not given any reason whatsoever....