S.T.REV No. 289 of 2007 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
(8) Accordingly, we pass the following:Order(i) The revision petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Judgment
H.L.Dattu,C.J. & A.K.Basheer,J.---------------------------------------------S.T. Rev. No.289 of 2007----------------------------------------------Dated, this the 27th November, 2008ORDERH.L.Dattu, C.J. The assessee is a dealer, registered under the provisions of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 (“KGST Act” for short) and CentralSales Tax Act, 1956 (“CST Act” for short).(2) The relevant assessment year is 2001-02.(3) The assessing authority has completed the assessment, quantifying the tax liability based on certain informations received by them from the Intelligence Wing of the Department also taking into consideration the compounding of the offence by the assessee. (4) The orders passed by the assessing authority was modified by the first appellate authority in the appeal filed by the assessee. (5) The assessee had carried the matter by filing a second appeal, in T.A.No.478 of 2004, before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, though notices the several contentions canvassed by the assessee's representative, does not answer any one of them, but only confirms the orders passed by the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority. In fact, at paragraph 2, the Tribunal notices the several contentions raised by the S.T.Rev.289 of 2007 - 2 -assessee's representative and those contentions are answered by the Tribunal in one paragraph. That is paragraph 5. In that, the Tribunal has only stated as under: “With regard to the other additions based on inspections and vehicle checking the addition made by the authority below is found just and reasonable”.(6) The orders passed by the Tribunal is attacked by the learned counsel appearing for the assessee, contending, that, the orders so passed is a non-speaking order. In support of that contention, the learned counsel has invited our attention to the observations made by this Court in the case of Girish Kumar, K.E. v.
Sales Tax Appellate AssistantCommissioner [(2001) 122 STC 546 (Ker.)]. In the said decision, the Courthas observed as under: “It is true that the appellate authority should not lightly discard findings of fact based on evidence. It is open to the appellate authority to reappreciate the facts and reach aconclusion at divergence with that of the lower authority. Hence it is the duty of the appellate authority to assess the law and facts independently. If it finds that the findings arrived atby the authorities below are correct and the provisions of law have been complied with properly, then it can agree with the lower authority; otherwise it can interfere with the orders of the subordinate authorities. It may be true that in many casesit may agree with the findings of the lower authorities. But that does not mean that the Tribunal has not got power to assess S.T.Rev.289 of 2007 - 3 -the evidence independently.
Operative part
A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has not contributed any single independent finding. It has only approved the order of the lower authorities without stating any further. The arguments of the counsel for the appellant have not been considered on their proper perspective”.(7) Keeping in view what has been said by this Court in the aforesaid decision, we have carefully looked into the orders passed by the Tribunal. We are of the opinion, that, the said order is only a non-speakingorder and that order cannot be sustained by any Court, much less a revisionCourt. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by the Tribunal requires to be set aside and the matter requires to be remitted back to the Tribunalfor fresh disposal in accordance with law, after considering each one of the contentions canvassed by the assessee in the memorandum of appeal. (8) Accordingly, we pass the following: Order(i) The revision petition is disposed of.
(ii) The order passed by the Tribunal in T.A.No.478/2004, dated26th March, 2007, is set aside. (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to reconsider the assertions and contentions canvassed by the assessee's representative, after affording an opportunity of hearing the assessee's representative once over again and, thereafter, pass a speaking order. S.T.Rev.289 of 2007 - 4 -(iv) All the contentions of the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. H.L.Dattu Chief Justice A.K.Basheer Judgevku/-
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: (8) Accordingly, we pass the following:Order(i) The revision petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
theKerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963; CentralSales Tax Act, 1956.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 27 Nov 2008. The bench was A K BASHEER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.