EMERALD INTERNATIONAL LTD Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Sales Tax Tribunal is required to pass a speaking order while deciding the appeal filed by an assessee under Section 20(2) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 is the short question which calls for adjudication in this petition.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that for the assessment year 1990-91, the assessing officer passed order dated 29.10.1993 and imposed tax amounting to Rs. 1,55,995/-, penalty amounting to Rs. one lac and interest amounting to Rs. 92,658/- upon the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. It also applied for grant of exemption from payment of tax and penalty. By an order dated 4.3.1994, the appellate authority directed the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 2,10,000/- as a condition for entertaining the appeal. The petitioner did not feel satisfied with the order of the appellate authority and, therefore, it filed second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab under Section 20(2) of the Act of 1948. This appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order Annexure P.7 dated 26.11.1996.

(3.) The only point urged by Shri K.L. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the principles of natural justice as well as to the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Act of 1948 because no reasons have been assigned by the Tribunal for rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner. Shri Goyal argued that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the fundamental issue which is required to be examined while deciding the appeal filed under Section 20(2). He further submitted that the business of the petitioner was closed and financial position of the assessee was extremely bad and, therefore, it was unable to pay the amount in terms of the directions given by the appellate authority but the Tribunal has not at all considered any of these points while dismissing the appeal. On the other hand, Mrs. Tuli argued that the petitioner's business has not been closed down and in fact it is running business in another name. She, however, conceded that this aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.