A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons for its decisions to ensure fairness and accountability in the decision-making process.

JUDGMENT :

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”).

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 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.

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 superio