Disposed

State of Raj v. Mohan Lal and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Jul 2024CW/3576/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a Rajasthan Tax Board revision order over a supplementary lease deed and stamp duty demand. The High Court found the Board's order non-speaking, set it aside, and remitted the matter to the Board to decide afresh with hearing and liberty for all pleas.

What did the court decide?

Board's order set aside; revision remitted to Board for fresh decision with hearing; parties to appear before Board on 30.08.2024

State of Raj Vs Mohan Lal and Ors. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:28920-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3576/2010

¶4

State Of Rajasthan through Sub-Registrar-I, Bundi.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Mohan Lal son of Shri Bajrang Lal

¶8

Mukesh Kumar son of Mohan Lal

¶9

Bhagwan Lakhotia son of Shri Nand Kishore

¶10

Murli Manohar son of Nand Kishore

¶11

Shailendra Lakhotia son of Shri Nand Kishore, partners Hadoti Rice Mills, Village Raghivarpura, Bundi.

¶12

Hadoti Rice Mills Village Raghivarpura, Tehsil Bundi through Partners MohanLal Mukesh Kumar Bhagwan Lakhotia, Murlidhar Shailendra Lakhotia.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

Rajasthan Tax Board, Bundi.

¶15

District Industrial Centre Bundi through General Manager, Bundi.

¶16

----Proforma Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja,AAG with Ms. Kinjal Surana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶19

Order

¶20

10/07/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL):-

¶21

This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 28.11.2008 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board (for short ‘Board’) whereby, the revision petition of the respondent was accepted.

¶22

The brief facts are that lease deed dated 10.05.1988 (Annexure-A2) was executed between M/s Jyoti General Industries Raghbirpura, Bundi Tehsil, Bundi and the State Government.

¶23

(2 of 4)

¶24

[2024:RJ-JP:28920-DB]

¶25

[CW-3576/2010]

¶26

Subsequently, supplementary lease deed dated 10.02.1992 was presented for registration. The petitioner took a stand that it is not a supplementary lease deed and created demand for stamp duty. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a revision and the same was accepted by the Board. Hence, the present petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial lease deed was between M/s Jyoti General Industries and the State Government whereas, the supplementary lease deed was between M/s Hadoti Rice Mills and the State Government. The contention is that it was not a supplementary lease deed.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order, submits that in the initial lease deed, it was specifically stated that the land on lease is being taken for the purpose of establishing Hadoti Rice Mills and therefore, it was a supplementary lease deed. It is contended that apart from the argument accepted by the Board, the respondent had raised other grounds for challenging the demand.

¶29

From perusal of the impugned order, it is forthcoming that the issue raised by the parties have not been specifically dealt with and even the bare facts are not noted in impugned order.

¶30

It is trite law that a quasi judicial authority has to pass a reasoned order. 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 held as under:

¶31

“a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

¶32

(3 of 4)

¶33

[2024:RJ-JP:28920-DB]

¶34

[CW-3576/2010]

¶35

b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

¶36

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.

¶37

d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

¶38

e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

¶39

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.

¶40

g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.

¶41

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.

¶42

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.

¶43

j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

¶44

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.

¶45

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.

¶46

m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.

¶47

(4 of 4)

¶48

[2024:RJ-JP:28920-DB]

¶49

[CW-3576/2010]

¶50

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.

¶51

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”.

¶52

The order of the Tax Board is non-speaking and is consequently set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Board to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶53

Needless to say that the parties shall be at liberty to raise all pleas before the Board.

¶54

In order to avoid further delay, let the parties appear personally or through representative before the Board on 30.08.2024 at 11:00 am.

¶55

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

Simple Kumawat /14

Whether Reportable: Yes

State of Raj v. Mohan Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Raj v. Mohan Lal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishant Jain S/O Sh. Paras Chand Jain Vs Income Tax Department

M/S. Vibrant Academy (India) Pvt. Limited Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Gomti Devi W/O Late Shri Manak Chand Agarwal Vs Principle Commissioner of Income Tax - I

Union of India through the General Manager Vs Shyam Sunder Sharma S/O Ghisulal

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Alwar Vs Rathi Special Steels Limited

Union of India through the General Manager Vs Sohan Lal Pathriya S/O Late Shri Nauratmal