SLP Civil No 7389 of 1987
146 From the Judgment and order dated 1831987 of the Orissa High Court in Miscellaneous Appeal No 423 of 1982
RK Mehta for the Petitioners
Anil B Divan and Vinoo Bhagat for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court dismissing an appeal from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing a challenge to the award
This is an unreasoned award
The petitioners challenge the award made in this case and ask for leave in view of the order passed by this Court on 16th July 1986 in similar matters where the question of the validity of the unreasoned award has been referred to the Constitution Bench for consideration
Mr RK Mehta learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this matter should also be referred for consideration before the Constitution Bench In this matter it appears that the contract was entered into by the parties in 1970 71 and the award was made in 1982
The High Court disposed of the objections to the award in 1987
It is true that the grounds of objections were filed before the learned Subordinate Judge and before the High Court
The ground was taken that it was an unreasoned award inter alia amongst many other grounds in the order of the High Court which have been gone into and these were that the arbitrator had misconducted himself and the proceedings and the award did not allow or reject the counter claim made by the appellants and further that the award of interest with effect from a date prior to the date of reference is bad in law
The High Court in its judgment had gone into all these aspects but it appears from the order of the High Court that this point of unreasoned award though taken in the petition of appeal was not pressed before the High Court
It also appears that in the grounds of appeal of the special leave petition no grievance has been made on the point although it had been taken by the petitioners
It appears to us that this point was not pressed before the High Court
It further appears that the arbitrator had been appointed by the court out of the panels submitted by the contesting parties
Furthermore in an allied contract ie in respect of a contract of another nat in the same building an award has been made and the same has been made the rule of court subject to certain conditions
147 It is true that the question of validity of unreasoned award is pending consideration before the Constitution Bench of this Court
It is for consideration before the Constitution Bench as to whether even if unreasoned award be bad such award of ancient vintage be bad
That would be a matter of grave consequence
In that view of the matter we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court in this case
In the facts and circumstances of this particular case and the features mentioned hereinbefore we declined to refer the matter to the Constitution Bench
We must note that the award inasmuch as the interest which had been awarded is set aside to the extent that the award of interest from the commencement of the proceedings before the Arbitrator to the date of the award
Subject to this modification the special leave petition is dismissed
The award will stand modified by deletion of interest for that period namely from the commencement of reference before the arbitrator to the date of award
This is in consonance with the views expressed by this Court in the case of Executive Engineer Irrigation Galimala  Ors
vs Abaaduta Jena  The special leave Petition is dismissed as indicated before
SL Petition dismissed


Summary:
 Section 141 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act 1959 requires dealers to furnish returns within such period and to such authority as may be prescribed
Rule 102 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules 1959 requires the assessee to file quarterly returns within one calendar month of the expiry of the period to which they relate
Sub section 3 of section 14 provides for extension of time for submission of the return
Subsection 2 of section 20 requires dealers to pay into the Government Treasury the full amount of tax due and furnish a receipt along with the return
Section 15 entitles the assessee to rebate in tax on returns furnished under sub section
1 of section 14 or within extended period
The proviso to sub section 2 of section 20 entitles a dealer to deduct from the amount of tax due from him any amount which may be admissible as rebate under the provisions of section 15
The assessee filed its quarterly returns under section 141 of the Act late by a few days
There was no application made by it to the prescribed authority for extension of time
The assessee however paid the tax before the due date of the respective returns and availed itself of the rebate by deducting the same while paying the tax due
The Tribunal held that as the assessee did not file its returns within the prescribed period and had sought no extension it was not entitled to the rebate
The High Court upheld the view taken by the Tribunal
Allowing the appeal 149  HELD 1
The assessee was entitled to the rebate of tax provided for in section 15 of the Bihar Sales Tax Act 1959
156B 2
The condition in section 15 referring to a return has a substantive as well as procedural content
The latter should be construed somewhat liberally and generously so long as the principal object of the provision is not frustrated
155H 156A CIT vs Kulu Valley Transport Co Pvt Ltd  Gursahai Saigal vs Cl
T 1963 48 ITR SC 1 Allen vs Trehearne and CIT vs Mahaliram Ramjidas referred to
31 The object of section 15 of the Act is to confer a benefit on an assessee for prompt payment of the tax
In the instant case the assessee had paid the tax before the due dates
The tax paid accords with the tax due on the basis of returns
There was short delay only in the filing of the returns
153D E 32 The Act does not set out any particular procedure for obtaining extention of time
It does not prescribe any form of application
It does not require that the prescribed authority must pass an order recording his satisfaction that the time should be extended and granting time
it envisages three consequences to the assessee for failure to file a return within the prescribed time or extended time i loss of rebate under section 15 ii risk of a penalty under section 144 and iii risk of a best judgment assessment under section 164
154A D 33 In the instant case the assessing authority has neither levied a penalty nor made a best judgment assessment nor recorded a finding that the delay was without reasonable cause
From these circumstances it is reasonable to infer that the returns though filed belatedly have been accepted and acted upon by the prescribed authority
An extention of time can thus be inferred from the attendant circumstances of the case
154D F 34 The condition precedent for the grant of rebate that the assessee should have filed its return within the prescribed or extended period can therefore be said to have been fulfilled in the present case
153H 154A Jamuna Floor  oil Mills Pvt Ltd vs State of Bihar 1968 22 STC 1 approved