Every quasi-judicial authority and every tribunal must not only record reasons in support of the order they make but such reasons should be communicated to the affected party.

G.S.Singhvi, J.

1. Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal constituted under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948, is required to record reasons and communicate the same to the affected party while exercising appellate/revisional powers under the Act of 1948 is one of the main issues which arises for adjudication in this petition filed by the petitioner for quashing of the orders passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Special Cell, (I), the Joint Director (Enforcement) and the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab.

2. Before examining the aforementioned issue, it will be useful to notice some of the facts. The petitioner entered into a contract with M/S Bharat Yantra Nigam Ltd. for instalment of Fire Fighting System at the oil terminal, of Indian Oil Corporation works at Bathinda. For the execution of that contract the petitioner imported machinery from outside the State of Punjab. The transport carrier through which the machinery was being brought to Bathinda was checked at the Sales Tax Check Barrier, Doomanwali. The officer incharge of the barrier detained the goods on the ground that the driver of the vehicle could not produce complete documents. He initiated action Under Section 14-B and imposed penalty amounting to Rs, 1,50,000/- Under Section 14-B(7) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, before whom the petitioner filed appeal Under Section 20(1) of the Act, affirmed the order passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer. The Sales Tax Tribunal upheld the orders passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer as well as the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner when it dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has challenged the imposition of penalty Under Section 14-B(7) on the ground that the Excise and Taxation, Officer did not have the jurisdiction to pass the order imposing penalty. It has also challenged the order of the Excise and Taxation Officer on the ground of violations of the principles of natural justice, non-application of mind and violation of the provisions of the Act. The orders passed by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner as well as the Tribunal have beep challenged on the ground that these authorities have not assigned reasons for dismissing appeals filed by the petitioners and, therefore, their orders are liable to be quashed being violative of the principles of natural justice.

4. After hearing Shri K.L. Goyal and Smt. Charu Tuli, we. have come to the conclusion that the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner deserves to be set aside in the short ground that it is a non-speaking order and, therefore, it is contrary to the principles of natural justice. We are also of the opinion that in view of the aforementioned conclusion, it is not necessary to deal with other grounds raised in the petition for challenging the orders passed by the Excise and Taxation Officer and the Deputy Excise and Taxation commissioner.

5. The principles of natural justice are multi-dimensional in their application. The Courts have applied different facets of the principles of natural justice while exercising the powers of judicial review. During recent past a new dimension has been added to the principles of natural justice, namely, that every quasi-judicial authority and every tribunal must not only record reasons in support of the order they make but such reasons should be communicated to the affected party. The requirement of recording of reasons and communication thereof has been read as an integral part of the concept of fair procedure, The necessity of; giving reasons flows from the concept of rule of law which constitutes one of the corner stones of our constitutional set up. The administrative authorities charged with the duty to act judicially cannot decide the matters on considerations of policy or expediency. The requirement of recording of reasons by such authori